Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner, an SEZ Unit, on the ground that the petitioner was not allowed to claim a refund under the GST law. The Court held that the ratio laid down in the Britannia Industries Limited case, where it was held that the refund claim for the tax period on supplies made to an SEZ Unit/Developer can be claimed by the supplier of goods or services, is still binding. The Appellate Authority erred in not following the dictum laid down in the Britannia case merely because an appeal against it is pending before a higher forum without a stay. The facts in the present case and the Britannia case being identical, a different view cannot be taken. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the Appellate Authority.
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner, an SEZ Unit, on the ground that the petitioner was not allowed to claim a refund under the GST law. The Court held that the ratio laid down in the Britannia Industries Limited case, where it was held that the refund claim for the tax period on supplies made to an SEZ Unit/Developer can be claimed by the supplier of goods or services, is still binding. The Appellate Authority erred in not following the dictum laid down in the Britannia case merely because an appeal against it is pending before a higher forum without a stay. The facts in the present case and the Britannia case being identical, a different view cannot be taken. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the Appellate Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
