The issue was whether telecom interconnect charges qualify as royalty. The Court held they do not, relying on earlier precedent and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The court held that the 2-year time limit under Section 54 is mandatory and binding on authorities. However, delay can be condoned by High Courts under Article 226 in genuine cases to grant rightful refunds.
The Court held that Tribunal remand is not a fresh reference under transfer pricing law. Hence, limitation expired earlier, entitling the assessee to refund.
The Court held that a delay of more than eight years in passing an order pursuant to a Tribunal remand cannot be considered reasonable. It ruled that such proceedings are barred by limitation and upheld the refund with interest.
The High Court held that ITC claims for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 remain valid if returns were filed before 30 November 2021 under the amended Section 16(5).
The Court permitted withdrawal of the writ after the authorities rejected the refund application filed by the Official Liquidator instead of the exporter. Liberty was granted to seek refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The High Court set aside the assessment order after noting that it was passed ex parte and remitted the matter for fresh proceedings with an opportunity for the assessee to file a return.
The Karnataka High Court set aside orders rejecting TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 credit claims after noting that relevant documents were not examined earlier. The matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny by the adjudicating authority.
Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Vigneshwara Transport Company (Karnataka High Court) SCN u/s 74 GST Valid even if based on Material from allegedly Illegal Search or from another Commissionerate-Karnataka HC The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST Act are independent adjudicatory proceedings & are not dependent on validity of […]
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
