https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438566 An application under the Karasamadhana Scheme could not be rejected without first determining whether recovery from the assessee's banker during the pendency of the appeal fell within Clause 2.4's refund restriction, which was framed around amounts paid at the time of filing the appeal. The authority had not clearly examined that factual and legal question before applying the cited circular, so the rejection was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. The competent authority was directed to pass a new order on the Scheme application in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 25 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jun 2023 08:29:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438566 An application under the Karasamadhana Scheme could not be rejected without first determining whether recovery from the assessee's banker during the pendency of the appeal fell within Clause 2.4's refund restriction, which was framed around amounts paid at the time of filing the appeal. The authority had not clearly examined that factual and legal question before applying the cited circular, so the rejection was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. The competent authority was directed to pass a new order on the Scheme application in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 25 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438566