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 allows the petition, quashes and sets aside the impugned appellate orders dated 29 Sept 2023, and restores the order dated 22 Sept 2022 issued by respondent No.3, thereby directing sanction of the refund claim. The court finds that the Appellate Authority erred by disregarding that the petitioner had furnished Bank Realisation Certificates and corroborating documents evidencing foreign remittance and invoice particulars as required under Rule 89(2)(c) of the GST Rules. The HC holds the findings of the Appellate Authority are contrary to the record, noting respondent No.3's verification recorded in Form GST RFD-06, and concludes the petitioner complied with statutory documentary requirements for zero-rated supplies.
The HC allows the petition, quashes and sets aside the impugned appellate orders dated 29 Sept 2023, and restores the order dated 22 Sept 2022 issued by respondent No.3, thereby directing sanction of the refund claim. The court finds that the Appellate Authority erred by disregarding that the petitioner had furnished Bank Realisation Certificates and corroborating documents evidencing foreign remittance and invoice particulars as required under Rule 89(2)(c) of the GST Rules. The HC holds the findings of the Appellate Authority are contrary to the record, noting respondent No.3's verification recorded in Form GST RFD-06, and concludes the petitioner complied with statutory documentary requirements for zero-rated supplies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
