Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The High Court held that the co-insurance premium and reinsurance commission would not be considered as supply and thus, the petitioners are entitled to a refund. The amounts deposited by the petitioner were not towards discharge of tax liability, but merely deposits pursuant to the court's order pending final adjudication. Since the utilization of these amounts for tax payment was deferred, they do not fall under the exclusions from refund under Schedule III of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petitions allowed.
The High Court held that the co-insurance premium and reinsurance commission would not be considered as supply and thus, the petitioners are entitled to a refund. The amounts deposited by the petitioner were not towards discharge of tax liability, but merely deposits pursuant to the court's order pending final adjudication. Since the utilization of these amounts for tax payment was deferred, they do not fall under the exclusions from refund under Schedule III of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petitions allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
