Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
