Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
HC determined that the petitioner is an independent service provider, not an intermediary under IGST Act. Services rendered to overseas recipients constitute export of services exempt from GST liability. The court quashed the appellate authority's order dated 01.09.2023, restored the original order dated 28.07.2022 granting refund for April and May 2022, and held that refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act are maintainable and not time-barred. The petition was consequently allowed, affirming the petitioner's right to claim GST refund.
HC determined that the petitioner is an independent service provider, not an intermediary under IGST Act. Services rendered to overseas recipients constitute export of services exempt from GST liability. The court quashed the appellate authority's order dated 01.09.2023, restored the original order dated 28.07.2022 granting refund for April and May 2022, and held that refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act are maintainable and not time-barred. The petition was consequently allowed, affirming the petitioner's right to claim GST refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
