Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Cash refund under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act was held not to be deniable merely because transitional credit was not carried forward in TRAN-1, since an assessee may opt for the more beneficial statutory route and claim refund instead of transition. On the alleged mismatch between ST-3 returns and supporting documents, the Tribunal found the documents reflected input service credit while the return mistakenly showed input credit; as the credit was admittedly availed and the error did not undermine entitlement or indicate mala fides, denial of refund was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Cash refund under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act was held not to be deniable merely because transitional credit was not carried forward in TRAN-1, since an assessee may opt for the more beneficial statutory route and claim refund instead of transition. On the alleged mismatch between ST-3 returns and supporting documents, the Tribunal found the documents reflected input service credit while the return mistakenly showed input credit; as the credit was admittedly availed and the error did not undermine entitlement or indicate mala fides, denial of refund was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
