Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The High Court held that the revisional authority's order placing the refund sanction order in abeyance u/s 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was invalid. Section 54 prescribes the procedure for claiming refunds, and the proviso to Section 54(1) requires following the procedure u/s 49(6) for refunds from the Electronic Cash Ledger. While Section 54 lacks explicit restrictions on refunds from the Electronic Cash Ledger, similar restrictions apply. Section 108 empowers the revisional authority to stay orders deemed illegal, improper, or prejudicial to revenue interests. However, the revisional authority's doubts about the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner were unrelated to the refund order's validity. Absent any finding rendering the refund order unsustainable, illegal, or invalid, invoking Section 108 was unjustified. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order.
The High Court held that the revisional authority's order placing the refund sanction order in abeyance u/s 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was invalid. Section 54 prescribes the procedure for claiming refunds, and the proviso to Section 54(1) requires following the procedure u/s 49(6) for refunds from the Electronic Cash Ledger. While Section 54 lacks explicit restrictions on refunds from the Electronic Cash Ledger, similar restrictions apply. Section 108 empowers the revisional authority to stay orders deemed illegal, improper, or prejudicial to revenue interests. However, the revisional authority's doubts about the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner were unrelated to the refund order's validity. Absent any finding rendering the refund order unsustainable, illegal, or invalid, invoking Section 108 was unjustified. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
