Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
