Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. HC set aside the impugned orders of respondent no. 3 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, and expressly held that the refund application was within limitation. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the merits of the refund claim in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. HC set aside the impugned orders of respondent no. 3 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, and expressly held that the refund application was within limitation. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the merits of the refund claim in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4879 
