Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Refund claim u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 was partially allowed. Refund of Rs. 20,52,143/- and Rs. 2,19,004/- granted, appellant can approach GST authority for credit in electronic ledger. Refund of Rs. 41,244/- and Rs. 4,87,533/- initially rejected as paid after 01.07.2007, when no CENVAT credit provision existed. However, CESTAT relied on its previous decision in Shree Ganesh Remedies case, holding that Section 142(3) covers amounts accrued pre-GST regime, even if paid post 01.07.2017. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to pass fresh order considering unjust enrichment, after processing refund claim for Rs. 41,244/- and Rs. 4,87,533/-.
Refund claim u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 was partially allowed. Refund of Rs. 20,52,143/- and Rs. 2,19,004/- granted, appellant can approach GST authority for credit in electronic ledger. Refund of Rs. 41,244/- and Rs. 4,87,533/- initially rejected as paid after 01.07.2007, when no CENVAT credit provision existed. However, CESTAT relied on its previous decision in Shree Ganesh Remedies case, holding that Section 142(3) covers amounts accrued pre-GST regime, even if paid post 01.07.2017. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to pass fresh order considering unjust enrichment, after processing refund claim for Rs. 41,244/- and Rs. 4,87,533/-.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
