Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The HC directed the refund of IGST paid under Section 16(3) of IGST Act read with Section 54 of CGST Act and Rule 96 of CGST Rules for zero-rated supply. The court determined that departmental circulars cannot override Rule 96, relying on precedent established in Amit Cotton Industries (Gujarat HC). The court ordered the respondent to refund Rs. 12,72,827 with applicable interest to the petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of the order. The petition was allowed, confirming that administrative circulars cannot supersede statutory rules governing IGST refund procedures for zero-rated supplies.
The HC directed the refund of IGST paid under Section 16(3) of IGST Act read with Section 54 of CGST Act and Rule 96 of CGST Rules for zero-rated supply. The court determined that departmental circulars cannot override Rule 96, relying on precedent established in Amit Cotton Industries (Gujarat HC). The court ordered the respondent to refund Rs. 12,72,827 with applicable interest to the petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of the order. The petition was allowed, confirming that administrative circulars cannot supersede statutory rules governing IGST refund procedures for zero-rated supplies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
