Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
A writ challenge to rejection of a GST refund was declined because the Court found no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice warranting Article 226 interference. It held that there is a material distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, and that disputes over the correctness of factual findings, including adequacy of supporting refund documents, should be pursued in the statutory appellate forum. The Court also rejected the argument that the GSTAT was inefficacious, noting that the Tribunal had begun functioning and could hear appeals. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal, with all merits left open.
A writ challenge to rejection of a GST refund was declined because the Court found no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice warranting Article 226 interference. It held that there is a material distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, and that disputes over the correctness of factual findings, including adequacy of supporting refund documents, should be pursued in the statutory appellate forum. The Court also rejected the argument that the GSTAT was inefficacious, noting that the Tribunal had begun functioning and could hear appeals. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal, with all merits left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
