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...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
