Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
The High Court held that the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight paid by the petitioner was unconstitutional. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and its own decision in Bla Coke Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., wherein it was categorically held that when the Notification itself is struck down, the authorities cannot insist on the levy of IGST on the amount of ocean freight. The High Court determined that this was not a case of unconstitutional levy or illegal levy but rather a voluntary payment made under a mistake of law. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the IGST was maintainable and allowed the petition, directing the respondents to refund the IGST amount to the petitioner.
The High Court held that the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight paid by the petitioner was unconstitutional. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and its own decision in Bla Coke Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., wherein it was categorically held that when the Notification itself is struck down, the authorities cannot insist on the levy of IGST on the amount of ocean freight. The High Court determined that this was not a case of unconstitutional levy or illegal levy but rather a voluntary payment made under a mistake of law. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the IGST was maintainable and allowed the petition, directing the respondents to refund the IGST amount to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
