Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Larger Bench held that an appeal against an order passed u/s 142(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 is maintainable before the CESTAT. The Tribunal, citing a precedent involving identical facts, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that the appellant is entitled to a cash refund u/s 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, but remanded the case to the original authority for verification of original invoices/documents. The summary covers the key legal issues of maintainability of appeal, time limitation, refund claim, and the CESTAT's jurisdiction under the CGST Act.
The Larger Bench held that an appeal against an order passed u/s 142(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 is maintainable before the CESTAT. The Tribunal, citing a precedent involving identical facts, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that the appellant is entitled to a cash refund u/s 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, but remanded the case to the original authority for verification of original invoices/documents. The summary covers the key legal issues of maintainability of appeal, time limitation, refund claim, and the CESTAT's jurisdiction under the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
