TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Constitutional Challenge to GST Rule 89(5): Retrospective Amendment Limits Refund Claims for Differential Service Tax Structures</h1> <h3>M/s. SCORPIO ENERPRISE THROUGH DEVANG HARSHADBHAI PATHAK S/O. HARSHADBHAI PATHAK Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> HC examined the constitutional validity of amended subrule [5] of Rule 89 in GST Rules, 2017. The court considered the retrospective effect preventing ... Vires of amended subrule [5] of Rule 89 of the Central Goods & Services Rules, 2017 which has been given retrospective effect - Held that:- Essentially, by virtue of this rule, in case of inverted tax structure of Service tax, the assessee; such as the petitioner, would not be able to claim refund of the differential service tax. The Government, as a subordinate legislature, cannot frame rules which deprives a person of such benefit. Notice returnable on 25th October 2018. The petitioner challenged the vires of amended subrule [5] of Rule 89 of the Central Goods & Services Rules, 2017, which has retrospective effect. The rule prevents claiming refund of differential service tax in case of inverted tax structure of Servicetax. The petitioner argued that the Government cannot frame rules depriving a person of refund recognized by the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. Notice returnable on 25th October 2018.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
