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" ?
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, quashing the respondent's rejection order. The court directed the respondent to grant a refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- with 6% interest per annum from 12.09.2021 until actual payment, as per Section 56 of CGST Act. The original ground for refund rejection was found factually incorrect, as the Appellate Authority had indeed specified the refund amount. The petition was consequently disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, quashing the respondent's rejection order. The court directed the respondent to grant a refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- with 6% interest per annum from 12.09.2021 until actual payment, as per Section 56 of CGST Act. The original ground for refund rejection was found factually incorrect, as the Appellate Authority had indeed specified the refund amount. The petition was consequently disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
