Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
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...
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
