Central Government rescinds 2017 notification creating 4.05-hectare SEZ at Ameenpur after developer de-notification request; state no-objection confir...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10901 to 10920 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
