Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
HC held that petitioner was entitled to refund of IGST and Service Tax paid on ocean freight following Mohit Minerals precedent. While addressing unjust enrichment concerns, court found petitioner's commitment to refund consumers through tariff adjustments satisfactory. Petitioner established plan to maintain refund amount in separate account for consumer benefit under Electricity Act provisions. Court rejected authorities' transfer of Rs. 23 Crores to Consumer Welfare Fund, finding it inappropriate when mechanism exists to return funds to affected consumers. Orders transferring refund to Consumer Welfare Fund quashed. Authorities directed to refund amount to petitioner within two weeks, with understanding funds would benefit consumers through regulated tariff reductions.
HC held that petitioner was entitled to refund of IGST and Service Tax paid on ocean freight following Mohit Minerals precedent. While addressing unjust enrichment concerns, court found petitioner's commitment to refund consumers through tariff adjustments satisfactory. Petitioner established plan to maintain refund amount in separate account for consumer benefit under Electricity Act provisions. Court rejected authorities' transfer of Rs. 23 Crores to Consumer Welfare Fund, finding it inappropriate when mechanism exists to return funds to affected consumers. Orders transferring refund to Consumer Welfare Fund quashed. Authorities directed to refund amount to petitioner within two weeks, with understanding funds would benefit consumers through regulated tariff reductions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
