Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court addressed the issue of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit where remittances were received in a different branch's bank account. The Court held that establishments should be treated as distinct persons under the CGST Act, even if they are part of the same entity. The petitioner had initially not provided bank account details for its Delhi branch but later updated them, including a Bangalore bank account where remittances were credited. The Court observed that these remittances were clearly connected to services rendered by the Delhi branch, and the objection raised was overly technical and unsustainable. The Court clarified that the CGST Act contemplates entities having multiple establishments across states, and Section 25(4) and (5) override the principle of branch offices not being separate juridical entities. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
The High Court addressed the issue of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit where remittances were received in a different branch's bank account. The Court held that establishments should be treated as distinct persons under the CGST Act, even if they are part of the same entity. The petitioner had initially not provided bank account details for its Delhi branch but later updated them, including a Bangalore bank account where remittances were credited. The Court observed that these remittances were clearly connected to services rendered by the Delhi branch, and the objection raised was overly technical and unsustainable. The Court clarified that the CGST Act contemplates entities having multiple establishments across states, and Section 25(4) and (5) override the principle of branch offices not being separate juridical entities. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
