Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated February 28, 2023, to the extent it pertained to three shipping bills (nos. 607682 and 607685 dated October 1, 2020, and 607467 dated October 22, 2020). The court ruled that petitioner should be permitted to rely on shipping bills now properly certified by the Superintendent of Customs, rejecting the administrative denial of unutilised input credit refund that had been based primarily on the technicality that six shipping bills were signed by the Customs Inspector rather than the Superintendent. The application was disposed of accordingly, allowing petitioner to proceed with the refund claim using the properly certified documentation.
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated February 28, 2023, to the extent it pertained to three shipping bills (nos. 607682 and 607685 dated October 1, 2020, and 607467 dated October 22, 2020). The court ruled that petitioner should be permitted to rely on shipping bills now properly certified by the Superintendent of Customs, rejecting the administrative denial of unutilised input credit refund that had been based primarily on the technicality that six shipping bills were signed by the Customs Inspector rather than the Superintendent. The application was disposed of accordingly, allowing petitioner to proceed with the refund claim using the properly certified documentation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
