https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384376 The Court held that the tax deduction direction issued by the Commercial Tax Officer was without legal authority. It directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 2 crores within eight weeks. Despite jurisdictional issues post-State bifurcation, the Court ruled that the 1st respondent was primarily responsible for the refund, even though the counterpart at Gudur denied availability of funds. The Court emphasized that the refund was necessary as it was received pursuant to a court order, and ordered the cancellation of the Bank Guarantee. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384376 The Court held that the tax deduction direction issued by the Commercial Tax Officer was without legal authority. It directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 2 crores within eight weeks. Despite jurisdictional issues post-State bifurcation, the Court ruled that the 1st respondent was primarily responsible for the refund, even though the counterpart at Gudur denied availability of funds. The Court emphasized that the refund was necessary as it was received pursuant to a court order, and ordered the cancellation of the Bank Guarantee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384376