Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
