Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The petitioner's claim for refund of tax paid on reverse charge basis on ocean freight along with interest was rejected. The Court held that the Input Tax Credit availed by the assessee under GST Acts and rules would entitle utilization for discharging tax liability. The respondent should have examined this aspect before sanctioning the refund claim. Merely paying tax does not entitle the petitioner to refund, as the issue was revenue neutral. The amount paid by the petitioner on ocean freight would have been availed as Input Tax Credit and utilized. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to refund claim or interest. However, the rights accrued to the petitioner need not be disturbed. The petitioner's prayer shows greediness and taking undue advantage of Court proceedings, despite not suffering any prejudice. Only importers who paid IGST on ocean freight charges on reverse charge basis and were not liable can be said to have been prejudiced. Under these circumstances, there was no case for granting relief to the petitioner. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no reasons to interfere with the impugned order.
The petitioner's claim for refund of tax paid on reverse charge basis on ocean freight along with interest was rejected. The Court held that the Input Tax Credit availed by the assessee under GST Acts and rules would entitle utilization for discharging tax liability. The respondent should have examined this aspect before sanctioning the refund claim. Merely paying tax does not entitle the petitioner to refund, as the issue was revenue neutral. The amount paid by the petitioner on ocean freight would have been availed as Input Tax Credit and utilized. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to refund claim or interest. However, the rights accrued to the petitioner need not be disturbed. The petitioner's prayer shows greediness and taking undue advantage of Court proceedings, despite not suffering any prejudice. Only importers who paid IGST on ocean freight charges on reverse charge basis and were not liable can be said to have been prejudiced. Under these circumstances, there was no case for granting relief to the petitioner. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no reasons to interfere with the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
