Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
