Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—²š˜€š˜š—®š˜ š—–š—µš—²š—»š—»š—®š—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—±š—·š˜‚š˜€š˜š—ŗš—²š—»š˜ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Tax already paid to the Government can be adjusted towards liability for a subsequent period. Assessee need not follow the refund process under Section 11B. Appeal allowed."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—”š—½š—½š—²š—¹š—¹š—®š—»š˜: M/s. Aircel Limited š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Adjustment of Service Tax towards subsequent liability under Rule 6(3) is valid when unjust enrichment is avoided. Aircel's adjustments through credit notes on shared recharges were upheld.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal upheld that tax adjustments via credit notes were valid, preventing unjust enrichment. Rule 6(3)'s refund conditions aim to avoid unjust enrichment but don't mandate refunds unnecessarily. This allowed instant relief to the assessee without breaching equity principles.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s. Aircel Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 9 February 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling confirms that Service Tax adjustments for subsequent liability are permissible when conditions of unjust enrichment are satisfied.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own