Delhi HC| Refund cannot be adjusted while appeal to earlier challenge to assessment is pending
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora JJ. disposed the petition and directed the respondents to
Refund
2G Spectrum Scam| Supreme Court rejects ex-licensee’s refund demand of Rs 1454.94 crores Entry Fee, holding him faulty as a confederate of fraud
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of
Cal HC │ No intention of any evasion of tax; Court directs refund of penalty and tax paid on protest
Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. decided on a petition which was filed challenging the impugned order of the appellate commissioner confirming
Financier-in-possession of a motor/transport vehicle liable to pay tax under U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997: SC
Supreme Court: While dealing with the scope of Section 12 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, bench of MR Shah*
CESTAT | Jurisdiction for claim of refund filed/initiated to be dealt under the provision Central Excise law and not by the provision of CGST law
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) dismissed the application filed by the Revenue (CCE & ST,
Claiming Refund Sans Challenge to Assessment in Customs Law: The Controversy Explained
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 4
When 25% of the bid is already paid, whether failure to deposit the remaining 75% empowers the Bank to direct forfeiture of money even when Bank suffered no loss in subsequent auction? SC answers
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., directed the Indian Bank to refund the 25% auction
CESTAT | Can refund claim be denied on the ground that freight had not been included in the assessable value? Tribunal answers
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal wherein the refund claim was denied in
CESTAT | Can refund of the IGST paid on the imported goods be demanded when there is no intention to take release of goods? Tribunal answers
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal brief facts of which were that
CESTAT | If two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted; Appeal allowed
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed with the point of
CESTAT | Amount claimed as refund already debited in Returns, whether there would be entitlement for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004? Tribunal answers
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the Tribunal had to decide
‘Parliament entitled to make policy choices on fiscal issues’;Here’s why Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of Section 54(3) of CGST Act
“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”
MahaRERA unriddles ‘carpet area’ under MOFA & RERA | Apartment booked under Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, Can complainants claim refund for variation in area of apartment as sale agreement was executed as per RERA Act?
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai (MahaRERA): While focusing on the definition of carpet area in Pre-RERA and Post-RERA, Coram of Ajoy
Unregistered Collective Investment Scheme violative of S. 12(1)(b) of SEBI Act and Regulations, order to pay 10% p.a. interest on refundable amount not vitiated: SAT
Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), upheld the direction given by
Builder handing over possession of plot with incomplete development beyond agreed time. Is buyer entitled to refund of deposit with interest? Commission decides
Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The Division Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member) addresses a builder-buyer dispute
Parties agreeing to out-of-court settlement without judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC can’t be denied benefit of refund of court fees; they are “even more deserving”: Supreme Court
“No justifiable reason why Section 69-A of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 should only incentivize the methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89, CPC and afford step brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.”
Tri HC | Default on the part of a Government department cannot be a reason to prevent an entity from seeking its entitlement; Petition allowed
Tripura High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kureshi, CJ and S.G. Chattopadhyay J., while allowing the present petition, held, “One department
CESTAT | Less than 12 residential units to be covered under exemption clause, refund allowed; Tribunal considers the Architect certificate, floor plan
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal filed against the rejection of refund
Booked air tickets during lockdown? Supreme Court orders full refund| Read directions
“We cannot lose sight of the present situation prevailing in the country and across the globe”
CESTAT | Refund of 4 % Special Additional Duty allowed where goods imported and sold were co-relatable goods
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Dinesha (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal filed with the issue of denial of