Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
The HC allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single-Member bench decision and ruled for the Revenue. The court held that refunds under section 49(6) are permissive only "in accordance with" section 54, and do not independently entitle a taxpayer to refund accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on discontinuance or disposals unless statutory preconditions are met. The respondent failed to plead or prove reversal of accumulated credit under section 29(5) and did not establish entitlement under section 54 or applicable rules. Consequently the writ was held not maintainable and no constitutional or statutory violation was made out entitling to the claimed refund.
The HC allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single-Member bench decision and ruled for the Revenue. The court held that refunds under section 49(6) are permissive only "in accordance with" section 54, and do not independently entitle a taxpayer to refund accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on discontinuance or disposals unless statutory preconditions are met. The respondent failed to plead or prove reversal of accumulated credit under section 29(5) and did not establish entitlement under section 54 or applicable rules. Consequently the writ was held not maintainable and no constitutional or statutory violation was made out entitling to the claimed refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.