Membership-consent thresholds for oppression petitions are satisfied by unchallenged voter-list consents, while unsupported forgery claims require pro...
Juridical seat versus arbitral venue determines supervisory court jurisdiction, while timely award challenges remain within the prescribed limitation ...
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
