Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
