Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC adjudicated a tax refund dispute involving budgetary support claims under CGST Act, 2017. The court found the respondent's rejection of partial refund claims improper, specifically for Rs. 48,640/- and Rs. 64,496/- for different quarters. The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid after input tax credit utilization. The court ordered respondent No. 3 to release the inadmissible amounts previously withheld, declaring the original rejection orders contrary to the notification dated 05.10.2017. Petition was disposed of with directions for refund release.
HC adjudicated a tax refund dispute involving budgetary support claims under CGST Act, 2017. The court found the respondent's rejection of partial refund claims improper, specifically for Rs. 48,640/- and Rs. 64,496/- for different quarters. The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid after input tax credit utilization. The court ordered respondent No. 3 to release the inadmissible amounts previously withheld, declaring the original rejection orders contrary to the notification dated 05.10.2017. Petition was disposed of with directions for refund release.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.