Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2021, directing refund of the contested CENVAT credit with consequential relief. The Tribunal held the refund claim was filed within the one-year limitation because duty was paid under protest and the relevant date is the Tribunal order; accordingly the one-year bar under Section 11B did not apply. The Tribunal further found Section 142(3) and 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act adequately govern cash refunds during transition to GST, and rejection on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment lacked merit. The Revenue's disallowance of Rs.11,98,234/- was therefore quashed and refund sanctioned as per law.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2021, directing refund of the contested CENVAT credit with consequential relief. The Tribunal held the refund claim was filed within the one-year limitation because duty was paid under protest and the relevant date is the Tribunal order; accordingly the one-year bar under Section 11B did not apply. The Tribunal further found Section 142(3) and 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act adequately govern cash refunds during transition to GST, and rejection on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment lacked merit. The Revenue's disallowance of Rs.11,98,234/- was therefore quashed and refund sanctioned as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
