Credit-note turnover adjustments preserve inverted-duty refunds, while ministerial re-computation does not constitute an impermissible appellate reman...
Revisional jurisdiction over export quota premium deductions requires both error and Revenue prejudice; a permissible assessment view cannot be displa...
HC held that, consequent to the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules w.e.f. 08.10.2024 and its inconsistency with s.16 of the IGST Act, no proceedings can validly continue under the said rule. All pending SCNs, consequential orders and appeals founded on Rule 96(10) were held to be non-sustainable, as the omission must operate to the benefit of all assessees in ongoing matters. In the present case, proceedings were only at the summons stage; hence, the HC quashed the summons, the SCN and all subsequent orders arising therefrom. The petitioner, having already made the additional 10% pre-deposit while pursuing appellate remedies, is entitled to refund/relief without being subjected to any further action under the omitted Rule 96(10). The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
HC held that, consequent to the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules w.e.f. 08.10.2024 and its inconsistency with s.16 of the IGST Act, no proceedings can validly continue under the said rule. All pending SCNs, consequential orders and appeals founded on Rule 96(10) were held to be non-sustainable, as the omission must operate to the benefit of all assessees in ongoing matters. In the present case, proceedings were only at the summons stage; hence, the HC quashed the summons, the SCN and all subsequent orders arising therefrom. The petitioner, having already made the additional 10% pre-deposit while pursuing appellate remedies, is entitled to refund/relief without being subjected to any further action under the omitted Rule 96(10). The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
