Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
