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" ?
The HC quashed orders rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit on supplies made to SEZ units without payment of tax. The Court held that once the respondents admitted the petitioner's entitlement to refund, the Court had jurisdiction to direct its grant despite procedural non-compliance with Circular No. 125/44/2019. The Court emphasized that while procedural requirements are important, they cannot extinguish substantive rights of the assessee under tax laws. Allowing the Department to retain excess tax would constitute unjust enrichment contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that procedure must remain subservient to substantive justice, particularly in genuine refund cases where the assessee's rights are established.
The HC quashed orders rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit on supplies made to SEZ units without payment of tax. The Court held that once the respondents admitted the petitioner's entitlement to refund, the Court had jurisdiction to direct its grant despite procedural non-compliance with Circular No. 125/44/2019. The Court emphasized that while procedural requirements are important, they cannot extinguish substantive rights of the assessee under tax laws. Allowing the Department to retain excess tax would constitute unjust enrichment contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that procedure must remain subservient to substantive justice, particularly in genuine refund cases where the assessee's rights are established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
