Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee to claim refund of Rs. 3,28,75,733/- towards Central Value Added Tax credit, Customs Duty, and Special Additional Duty paid after the appointed day under the CGST Act. The Tribunal rightly relied on Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to entertain the refund claim for amounts paid under the existing law prior to the GST regime, despite non-fulfillment of export obligation under the advance authorization scheme. The High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's legal interpretation and conclusion.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee to claim refund of Rs. 3,28,75,733/- towards Central Value Added Tax credit, Customs Duty, and Special Additional Duty paid after the appointed day under the CGST Act. The Tribunal rightly relied on Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to entertain the refund claim for amounts paid under the existing law prior to the GST regime, despite non-fulfillment of export obligation under the advance authorization scheme. The High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's legal interpretation and conclusion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
