Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
The High Court held that u/s 54 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the input tax credit paid is higher than the output tax, the dealer is entitled to seek a refund of the excess amount. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the dealer voluntarily paid excess tax, as the legislative intent is to provide a refund when the input tax credit exceeds the output tax. In the present case, the dealer was entitled to a refund as the output tax was only 5%, while the input tax credit was 18%. Regarding the interest rate, the Court modified the 9% rate awarded by the writ Court to 6%, payable by the Revenue from the date of expiry of sixty days from the Original Authority's order u/s 54(5). The writ appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The High Court held that u/s 54 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the input tax credit paid is higher than the output tax, the dealer is entitled to seek a refund of the excess amount. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the dealer voluntarily paid excess tax, as the legislative intent is to provide a refund when the input tax credit exceeds the output tax. In the present case, the dealer was entitled to a refund as the output tax was only 5%, while the input tax credit was 18%. Regarding the interest rate, the Court modified the 9% rate awarded by the writ Court to 6%, payable by the Revenue from the date of expiry of sixty days from the Original Authority's order u/s 54(5). The writ appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
