The Larger Bench held that an appeal against an order passed u/s ...

Taxpayers can appeal against GST orders & claim refunds - CESTAT jurisdiction affirmed.

September 21, 2024

Case Laws Service Tax AT

The Larger Bench held that an appeal against an order passed u/s 142(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 is maintainable before the CESTAT. The Tribunal, citing a precedent involving identical facts, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that the appellant is entitled to a cash refund u/s 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, but remanded the case to the original authority for verification of original invoices/documents. The summary covers the key legal issues of maintainability of appeal, time limitation, refund claim, and the CESTAT's jurisdiction under the CGST Act.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Larger Bench held that an appeal against an order passed u/s ...

Taxpayers can appeal against GST orders & claim refunds - CESTAT jurisdiction affirmed.

September 21, 2024

Case Laws Service Tax AT

You may also like:

HC quashed order relating to Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims that were time-barred under Section 16(4) of CGST Act but fell within limitation under Section 16(5)....

The NCLAT dismissed appellants' attempt to submit belated claims after a resolution plan had already been approved by both the CoC and Adjudicating Authority. The...

ITAT upheld the assessee's appeal, rejecting the revisional order under Section 263. The tribunal found no merit in the revenue's allegations regarding inadequate...

ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal held that the consequential assessment order was invalid since the original order under...

Refund claim - time limitation - Service tax was paid on advance received - later the order was cancelled - The relevant date for filing the refund claim is the...

NCLAT affirmed the Resolution Professional's calculation of worker's salary claim at Rs.185,62,360/- for layoff period. The tribunal determined that the Resolution...

HC held that petitioner's claim for input tax credit (ITC) was valid under amended Section 16 provisions. Following precedent established in Sri Ganapathi Pandi...

Interest rate on delayed refunds u/s 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 restricted to 6% p.a. as per Notification 67/2003-CE (N.T.), overruling appellant's claim of 12%....

The case involves liquidation of a corporate debtor where a creditor sought refund of an amount with interest paid to prevent invocation of their Bank Guarantee. The...

Rejection of the petitioner’s claim for budgetary support - Violation of principles of natural justice - The court emphasized that the Budgetary Support Scheme mandated...

Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance of STCG - FMV determination of shares - The Appellate Tribunal (AT) scrutinized the fair market value and share valuation process,...

Admission of section 7 application - financial debt or not - The Tribunal affirmed that the disbursal of ₹5 crores to the corporate debtor by the financial...

Power of RP to admit the Claims suo-motu - There is no such provision that the IRP shall admit the Claim without filing a Claim either in Form-B or in Form-C. - the IRP...

The appellants claimed that the entire amount of service tax paid by them should be considered as a deposit u/s 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought a refund....

This order authorizes Income-tax authorities to admit applications or claims for refund and carry forward of loss u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It...

Quick Updates: