Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 
of 4915 
