Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
The HC held that Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax amending Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules had to be applied even to refund applications filed before 5 July 2022, following the final view in Ascent Meditech Ltd. The appellate authority's failure to consider that notification and the related clarification rendered its rejection of the refund claims unsustainable. On a composite reading of Section 54(3) and the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit arising from the inverted duty structure, and the original and appellate rejection orders were quashed.
The HC held that Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax amending Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules had to be applied even to refund applications filed before 5 July 2022, following the final view in Ascent Meditech Ltd. The appellate authority's failure to consider that notification and the related clarification rendered its rejection of the refund claims unsustainable. On a composite reading of Section 54(3) and the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit arising from the inverted duty structure, and the original and appellate rejection orders were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
