Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Refund under the inverted duty structure was denied by applying paragraph 2(2) of a circular restricting eligibility for refund applications filed after 13.07.2022. Relying on a coordinate bench ruling, the court held that paragraph 2(2) of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST was ultra vires Section 54(3) of the CGST/GGST Act and violative of Article 14, and therefore could not govern refund adjudication; consequently, the impugned refund rejection and appellate order were quashed, the matter was remanded, and the proper officer was directed to reprocess the refund in accordance with law within 12 weeks. - HC
Refund under the inverted duty structure was denied by applying paragraph 2(2) of a circular restricting eligibility for refund applications filed after 13.07.2022. Relying on a coordinate bench ruling, the court held that paragraph 2(2) of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST was ultra vires Section 54(3) of the CGST/GGST Act and violative of Article 14, and therefore could not govern refund adjudication; consequently, the impugned refund rejection and appellate order were quashed, the matter was remanded, and the proper officer was directed to reprocess the refund in accordance with law within 12 weeks. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.