Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
