Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
The HC allowed the petitioner's writ and directed the respondent to refund the wrongly retained tax together with interest under s.243 until payment, holding that the respondent lacked statutory authority to set off or retain the amount because it failed to demonstrate any tax liability due from the petitioner. The court emphasized that recovery of tax requires a specific charging provision and rejected reliance on prior authorities as inapplicable to the distinct cause of action. Consequential relief in the form of interest was granted and the respondent was ordered to complete the refund process within ten weeks from communication of the order.
The HC allowed the petitioner's writ and directed the respondent to refund the wrongly retained tax together with interest under s.243 until payment, holding that the respondent lacked statutory authority to set off or retain the amount because it failed to demonstrate any tax liability due from the petitioner. The court emphasized that recovery of tax requires a specific charging provision and rejected reliance on prior authorities as inapplicable to the distinct cause of action. Consequential relief in the form of interest was granted and the respondent was ordered to complete the refund process within ten weeks from communication of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.