<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (7) TMI 844 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410002</link>
    <description>Refund of input tax credit to an exporter could not be denied merely for non-production of a customs clearance certificate where that certificate was not issued for postal exports and other reliable export evidence was available. The refund claim was supported by the export order, invoice, postal receipt, bank credit advice, and postal declaration, and the earlier appellate view recognised that alternative documents must be considered when the prescribed certificate is unobtainable. A later amendment could not validate the earlier refusal where the refund was already due under the statute. The rejection was therefore treated as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and discriminatory, and the exporter was held entitled to refund with statutory interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:57:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=650368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 844 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410002</link>
      <description>Refund of input tax credit to an exporter could not be denied merely for non-production of a customs clearance certificate where that certificate was not issued for postal exports and other reliable export evidence was available. The refund claim was supported by the export order, invoice, postal receipt, bank credit advice, and postal declaration, and the earlier appellate view recognised that alternative documents must be considered when the prescribed certificate is unobtainable. A later amendment could not validate the earlier refusal where the refund was already due under the statute. The rejection was therefore treated as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and discriminatory, and the exporter was held entitled to refund with statutory interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>