Section 7 admission requires established financial debt and default, not precise interest quantification, while post-suspension defaults remain action...
Belated Form 10B filing during Covid-19 cannot defeat charitable exemption where genuine hardship warrants condonation and substantial justice prevail...
The CESTAT held that the revenue authorities cannot adopt an inconsistent stand in subsequent proceedings when the facts are identical, unless there is a change in law. The authorities failed to base their decision of rejecting the refund claim on any change in law or circumstance, and ignored the appellant's submission regarding earlier orders granting refunds for the same service. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication, considering the earlier orders granting refunds, the appellant's submissions, and the laws applicable at the relevant time, after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The CESTAT held that the revenue authorities cannot adopt an inconsistent stand in subsequent proceedings when the facts are identical, unless there is a change in law. The authorities failed to base their decision of rejecting the refund claim on any change in law or circumstance, and ignored the appellant's submission regarding earlier orders granting refunds for the same service. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication, considering the earlier orders granting refunds, the appellant's submissions, and the laws applicable at the relevant time, after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
