Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
