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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
HC held that the petitioners, being 100% EOUs making zero-rated supplies under LUT, are exporters and not "deemed exporters" under s.2(39) r/w s.147 of the GST Act. Since their suppliers treated supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedure or claim deemed export benefits, para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) are inapplicable. The petitioners correctly claimed refund of unutilised ITC under s.54(3) r/w Rule 89(1)/89(4). The authorities' reliance on the Circular with retrospective effect and exercise of suo motu review under s.107(2) to deny or revisit sanctioned refunds was held unsustainable. The HC allowed the petitions, restoring the refund claims of unutilised ITC.
HC held that the petitioners, being 100% EOUs making zero-rated supplies under LUT, are exporters and not "deemed exporters" under s.2(39) r/w s.147 of the GST Act. Since their suppliers treated supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedure or claim deemed export benefits, para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) are inapplicable. The petitioners correctly claimed refund of unutilised ITC under s.54(3) r/w Rule 89(1)/89(4). The authorities' reliance on the Circular with retrospective effect and exercise of suo motu review under s.107(2) to deny or revisit sanctioned refunds was held unsustainable. The HC allowed the petitions, restoring the refund claims of unutilised ITC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
