Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
