Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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.