<?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>2025 (4) TMI 498 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768584</link>
    <description>An eligible industrial unit under the budgetary support scheme was entitled to reimbursement only in accordance with the notified formula, namely 58% of Central tax and 29% of Integrated tax paid through the cash ledger after input tax credit utilisation. The petitioner&#039;s eligibility was not disputed, and the respondents had already sanctioned most of the refund. The High Court held that the remaining partial rejection was unsustainable because the impugned orders gave no calculation basis or reasoned justification and were contrary to the scheme&#039;s plain terms. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the full refundable amount claimed under the scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 19:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 498 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768584</link>
      <description>An eligible industrial unit under the budgetary support scheme was entitled to reimbursement only in accordance with the notified formula, namely 58% of Central tax and 29% of Integrated tax paid through the cash ledger after input tax credit utilisation. The petitioner&#039;s eligibility was not disputed, and the respondents had already sanctioned most of the refund. The High Court held that the remaining partial rejection was unsustainable because the impugned orders gave no calculation basis or reasoned justification and were contrary to the scheme&#039;s plain terms. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the full refundable amount claimed under the scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>