https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345909 The High Court held that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to retain the tax amount after determining no tax was due, emphasizing that without penal provisions, the amount should not have been withheld. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the rejection of the refund application and directing the respondent to refund the tax amount paid within a specified timeframe, allowing for adjustment towards any current tax dues if the petitioner continues their business under relevant tax acts. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345909 The High Court held that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to retain the tax amount after determining no tax was due, emphasizing that without penal provisions, the amount should not have been withheld. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the rejection of the refund application and directing the respondent to refund the tax amount paid within a specified timeframe, allowing for adjustment towards any current tax dues if the petitioner continues their business under relevant tax acts. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345909