Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
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 
