Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
