Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
