Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
