Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 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 held that Section 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act permits refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) where input and output supplies are identical, rejecting restrictive interpretations in Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST. The court found the respondent's orders erroneously relied on inapplicable circular provisions and improperly rejected refund claims. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders, directing the respondent to refund the accumulated ITC with applicable interest within a specified timeframe, thereby affirming taxpayer's statutory entitlement to ITC refund under the inverted duty structure provisions.
HC held that Section 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act permits refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) where input and output supplies are identical, rejecting restrictive interpretations in Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST. The court found the respondent's orders erroneously relied on inapplicable circular provisions and improperly rejected refund claims. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders, directing the respondent to refund the accumulated ITC with applicable interest within a specified timeframe, thereby affirming taxpayer's statutory entitlement to ITC refund under the inverted duty structure provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.