Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's petition challenging the order of the Single Judge. The court held that u/s 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, the Respondent's refund claims for Input Tax Credit on zero-rated sales were filed beyond the prescribed 180-day period from the date of accrual of such Input Tax Credit. However, the court emphasized that export incentives in the form of refund of Input Tax Credit should not be denied as exports bring precious foreign exchange to the country. The statutory restrictions were put in place only after 2010 through amendments to Section 18(3) of the Act and Rule 11(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the Respondent's refund claims filed prior to the amendments were valid.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's petition challenging the order of the Single Judge. The court held that u/s 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, the Respondent's refund claims for Input Tax Credit on zero-rated sales were filed beyond the prescribed 180-day period from the date of accrual of such Input Tax Credit. However, the court emphasized that export incentives in the form of refund of Input Tax Credit should not be denied as exports bring precious foreign exchange to the country. The statutory restrictions were put in place only after 2010 through amendments to Section 18(3) of the Act and Rule 11(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the Respondent's refund claims filed prior to the amendments were valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.