Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
