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...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
