Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The case pertains to the refund of service tax paid on input services utilized for the export of 'Cut and Polished Diamonds' during October 2015 to March 2016, as per Notification No. 41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. The appellants had claimed the refund, which was initially sanctioned by the original authority after verifying compliance with the notification's conditions. However, the issue arose regarding the address mentioned on the invoices not matching the registered address of the appellants. The Tribunal held that to claim the refund, the appellants only needed to be registered as exporters with the Export Promotion Council and with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities, which they had complied with. Furthermore, they had duly applied for and obtained a change of address in their ST-2 Certificate. Relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Commissioner of Service Tax-III vs. Scioinspire Consulting Services, the Tribunal ruled that the right to refund cannot be denied solely due to a mismatch in the registered address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying the refund of input service tax paid on the exported goods and allowed the appeal.
The case pertains to the refund of service tax paid on input services utilized for the export of 'Cut and Polished Diamonds' during October 2015 to March 2016, as per Notification No. 41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. The appellants had claimed the refund, which was initially sanctioned by the original authority after verifying compliance with the notification's conditions. However, the issue arose regarding the address mentioned on the invoices not matching the registered address of the appellants. The Tribunal held that to claim the refund, the appellants only needed to be registered as exporters with the Export Promotion Council and with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities, which they had complied with. Furthermore, they had duly applied for and obtained a change of address in their ST-2 Certificate. Relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Commissioner of Service Tax-III vs. Scioinspire Consulting Services, the Tribunal ruled that the right to refund cannot be denied solely due to a mismatch in the registered address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying the refund of input service tax paid on the exported goods and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
