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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC set aside refund rejection order under GST RFD-06 concerning export transactions with IGST payment. Petitioner, a manufacturer-exporter, made zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, through invoices dated April 17 and June 3, 2023, with corresponding shipping bills. Refund was withheld under Rule 96(4) due to data mismatch between shipping bills and GSTR-1. Court found violation of natural justice principles as petitioner wasn't given adequate opportunity to respond to show cause notice. Emphasizing benefit of doubt doctrine, HC invalidated refund rejection order dated September 25, 2024, directing fresh consideration of refund claim after providing proper hearing opportunity.
HC set aside refund rejection order under GST RFD-06 concerning export transactions with IGST payment. Petitioner, a manufacturer-exporter, made zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, through invoices dated April 17 and June 3, 2023, with corresponding shipping bills. Refund was withheld under Rule 96(4) due to data mismatch between shipping bills and GSTR-1. Court found violation of natural justice principles as petitioner wasn't given adequate opportunity to respond to show cause notice. Emphasizing benefit of doubt doctrine, HC invalidated refund rejection order dated September 25, 2024, directing fresh consideration of refund claim after providing proper hearing opportunity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.