Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal) allowed the appeal by majority, holding the appellant entitled to refund of Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess wrongly charged and paid to the service provider. The Tribunal found no allegation in the SCN, OIO or original proceedings that ST-3 returns were unrevised, hence that ground could not justify rejection at the Tribunal stage. Applying Point of Taxation Rule 6(a), advances and running-bill adjustments did not create an assessable service liability for fresh service and the SBC/KKC so collected is refundable to the person who bore the tax. Issues of Section 11B time-bar and unjust enrichment were not pleaded earlier and cannot be invoked; matter remitted to Division Bench for consequential orders.
CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal) allowed the appeal by majority, holding the appellant entitled to refund of Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess wrongly charged and paid to the service provider. The Tribunal found no allegation in the SCN, OIO or original proceedings that ST-3 returns were unrevised, hence that ground could not justify rejection at the Tribunal stage. Applying Point of Taxation Rule 6(a), advances and running-bill adjustments did not create an assessable service liability for fresh service and the SBC/KKC so collected is refundable to the person who bore the tax. Issues of Section 11B time-bar and unjust enrichment were not pleaded earlier and cannot be invoked; matter remitted to Division Bench for consequential orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
