Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
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.