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...
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act 2017 is a provision for entertaining and allowing refund of credit, but the refund's eligibility and admissibility under existing law is the determining factor. The case of M/s NACL Industries Ltd. held that refund was not permissible in certain situations where it was otherwise not eligible under existing law. The Larger Bench decision of M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd. dealt with the maintainability of such appeals before CESTAT, not the admissibility of refund u/s 142(3). The order of M/s Jagannath Polymers Pvt Ltd. allowed the appeal without addressing various orders on the interpretation of Section 142(3). Courts and Tribunals have held that credit is not a substantive right but a concession. The Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal had no infirmity.
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act 2017 is a provision for entertaining and allowing refund of credit, but the refund's eligibility and admissibility under existing law is the determining factor. The case of M/s NACL Industries Ltd. held that refund was not permissible in certain situations where it was otherwise not eligible under existing law. The Larger Bench decision of M/s Bosch Electrical Drive India Pvt Ltd. dealt with the maintainability of such appeals before CESTAT, not the admissibility of refund u/s 142(3). The order of M/s Jagannath Polymers Pvt Ltd. allowed the appeal without addressing various orders on the interpretation of Section 142(3). Courts and Tribunals have held that credit is not a substantive right but a concession. The Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal had no infirmity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
