Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Refund of service tax, interest on delayed sanction of refund, and time limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to service tax matters u/s 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The authorities cannot alter the statutory time limit prescribed for considering refund applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorized refund claims into three heads: unconstitutional levy, illegal levy, and tax paid under mistake of law. Since the refund applications were filed beyond the stipulated one-year period, rejection of the claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in consonance with statutory provisions. However, the assessee-appellants are entitled to interest for the period computed from the expiry of three months from the date of filing refund applications till sanction of the refund amount. The matter is remanded to the original authority for quantification of interest. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Refund of service tax, interest on delayed sanction of refund, and time limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to service tax matters u/s 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The authorities cannot alter the statutory time limit prescribed for considering refund applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorized refund claims into three heads: unconstitutional levy, illegal levy, and tax paid under mistake of law. Since the refund applications were filed beyond the stipulated one-year period, rejection of the claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in consonance with statutory provisions. However, the assessee-appellants are entitled to interest for the period computed from the expiry of three months from the date of filing refund applications till sanction of the refund amount. The matter is remanded to the original authority for quantification of interest. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
