Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
