Service permanent establishment requires non-auxiliary services, while arm's-length distributor remuneration precludes further profit attribution in I...
Make-available condition excludes standard SaaS subscription receipts where customers receive no independently usable technical knowledge after subscr...
Anonymous donation classification fails where charitable trusts maintain undisputed donor identity records and evidence corpus contributions' intended...
The petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 53,08,494/- which was paid in excess along with the return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March 2023. The excess payment arose due to rectification of an error committed while filing the return for January 2023, wherein the reverse charge liability was not reflected separately and was clubbed with the output tax liability. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner had rightly rectified the error in the March 2023 return by paying the excess amount through the electronic cash ledger, and was entitled to the refund claimed, in view of the Circular No. 26/2017 and the facts of the case.
The petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 53,08,494/- which was paid in excess along with the return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March 2023. The excess payment arose due to rectification of an error committed while filing the return for January 2023, wherein the reverse charge liability was not reflected separately and was clubbed with the output tax liability. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner had rightly rectified the error in the March 2023 return by paying the excess amount through the electronic cash ledger, and was entitled to the refund claimed, in view of the Circular No. 26/2017 and the facts of the case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
