Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT held that the substitution of Entry No. 25(a) in Notification No. 25/2012-ST by Notification No. 6/2014-ST is prospective, not retrospective, and thus the unamended notification governs the refund claim period. The appellant, a governmental authority, is entitled to exemption under the unamended clause 25(a) for services related to water supply, subject to proving entitlement. However, the refund claim is restricted by the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as applicable to the Finance Act, allowing recovery only for tax paid within the prescribed timeframe. The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter remanded for quantification of the refundable amount within limitation, conditioned on the appellant submitting an independent chartered accountant's certificate confirming no unjust enrichment. The impugned order was set aside accordingly.
The CESTAT held that the substitution of Entry No. 25(a) in Notification No. 25/2012-ST by Notification No. 6/2014-ST is prospective, not retrospective, and thus the unamended notification governs the refund claim period. The appellant, a governmental authority, is entitled to exemption under the unamended clause 25(a) for services related to water supply, subject to proving entitlement. However, the refund claim is restricted by the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as applicable to the Finance Act, allowing recovery only for tax paid within the prescribed timeframe. The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter remanded for quantification of the refundable amount within limitation, conditioned on the appellant submitting an independent chartered accountant's certificate confirming no unjust enrichment. The impugned order was set aside accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
