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...
The HC allowed the petition and directed the respondents to refund to the petitioner the 70% pre-deposit of Rs. 16,11,19,226/- paid through ITC/ECL, together with interest for delayed payment, within six weeks. The court held that respondents, having consciously accepted the 70% deposit via ITC/ECL without objection, are estopped from refusing cash refund; Section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act mandate cash refunds irrespective of mode of initial deposit. The court rejected reliance on the impugned Circular and on Rule 92(1A) to deny cash reimbursement, and affirmed that statutory entitlement to refund carries an attendant right to interest for undue retention.
The HC allowed the petition and directed the respondents to refund to the petitioner the 70% pre-deposit of Rs. 16,11,19,226/- paid through ITC/ECL, together with interest for delayed payment, within six weeks. The court held that respondents, having consciously accepted the 70% deposit via ITC/ECL without objection, are estopped from refusing cash refund; Section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act mandate cash refunds irrespective of mode of initial deposit. The court rejected reliance on the impugned Circular and on Rule 92(1A) to deny cash reimbursement, and affirmed that statutory entitlement to refund carries an attendant right to interest for undue retention.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
