Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 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 allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for unutilized Input Tax Credit under Section 54(3) of CGST Act due to inverted tax structure. The court relied on its previous ruling in the petitioner's identical case, where it had held that refund claims deserved to be allowed. Finding this precedent directly applicable to the present facts, the HC ordered respondents to make payment of the refund together with applicable interest within six weeks from receipt of the order.
The HC allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for unutilized Input Tax Credit under Section 54(3) of CGST Act due to inverted tax structure. The court relied on its previous ruling in the petitioner's identical case, where it had held that refund claims deserved to be allowed. Finding this precedent directly applicable to the present facts, the HC ordered respondents to make payment of the refund together with applicable interest within six weeks from receipt of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.