Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The appellant paid service tax voluntarily under reverse charge mechanism before the GST regime. The adjudicating authority denied refund, holding that service tax was paid voluntarily and no credit is available in the GST regime. However, Section 174(2) of the GST Act protects the right of credit accrued under the erstwhile law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. case held that transitional credit being a vested right cannot be denied on procedural grounds. Section 142(3) of the GST Act provides for disposing refund claims of service tax/duty under the erstwhile law in accordance with the existing law, and any amount accruing has to be paid in cash. There is no allegation that the credit is ineligible to the appellant. Rejection of the refund claim by referring to Section 142(8) is misplaced as the claim is only for refund and not assessment or adjudication. Hence, rejection of the refund claim is unjustified, and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
The appellant paid service tax voluntarily under reverse charge mechanism before the GST regime. The adjudicating authority denied refund, holding that service tax was paid voluntarily and no credit is available in the GST regime. However, Section 174(2) of the GST Act protects the right of credit accrued under the erstwhile law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. case held that transitional credit being a vested right cannot be denied on procedural grounds. Section 142(3) of the GST Act provides for disposing refund claims of service tax/duty under the erstwhile law in accordance with the existing law, and any amount accruing has to be paid in cash. There is no allegation that the credit is ineligible to the appellant. Rejection of the refund claim by referring to Section 142(8) is misplaced as the claim is only for refund and not assessment or adjudication. Hence, rejection of the refund claim is unjustified, and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.