Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Authorities under the GST regime cannot disregard a binding High Court declaration on SEZ refund claims merely because the issue has been taken to the Supreme Court; the law declared in Britannia continued to apply until displaced by a contrary High Court or Supreme Court ruling. On that basis, the refund rejection and appellate orders were unsustainable insofar as they refused to follow Britannia. The Court also noted that the question whether the services were for authorised operations, supported by the specified officer's endorsement, had not been adjudicated below and required fresh examination. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Authorities under the GST regime cannot disregard a binding High Court declaration on SEZ refund claims merely because the issue has been taken to the Supreme Court; the law declared in Britannia continued to apply until displaced by a contrary High Court or Supreme Court ruling. On that basis, the refund rejection and appellate orders were unsustainable insofar as they refused to follow Britannia. The Court also noted that the question whether the services were for authorised operations, supported by the specified officer's endorsement, had not been adjudicated below and required fresh examination. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
