Supervisory permanent establishment requires project-wise duration and qualifying construction nexus; offshore supplies and salary reimbursements rema...
Transfer-pricing comparability permits fresh objections and filters where software service comparables are functionally unsuitable for arm's-length pr...
Territorial rendering requirement excludes China-based management and consultancy services from fees for technical services under the India-China DTAA...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4879 
