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...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 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.