Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
