Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
The HC held that excess tax had to be refunded under the JVAT Act, 2005, and that a dealer entitled to refund was also entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum after ninety days from the refund application until actual payment. Once the earlier challenge had ended, including dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the Department was bound to process and release the refund. Administrative excuses such as vacancy or deputation of officers were held legally untenable and could not justify continued delay or defeat the statutory refund entitlement. The Commissioner was directed to ensure release of the refund with interest within the time fixed by the Court.
The HC held that excess tax had to be refunded under the JVAT Act, 2005, and that a dealer entitled to refund was also entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum after ninety days from the refund application until actual payment. Once the earlier challenge had ended, including dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the Department was bound to process and release the refund. Administrative excuses such as vacancy or deputation of officers were held legally untenable and could not justify continued delay or defeat the statutory refund entitlement. The Commissioner was directed to ensure release of the refund with interest within the time fixed by the Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
