Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
A High Court held that the six-month time limit for filing a rectification application under Notification No. 22/2024 is procedural and cannot defeat a substantive input tax credit benefit recognised by the retrospective insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6). On that basis, rejection of the application as time-barred was not sustained, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on merits after notice. The respondent was permitted to verify actual entitlement, including whether input tax credit had in fact been availed and whether other statutory conditions were met.
A High Court held that the six-month time limit for filing a rectification application under Notification No. 22/2024 is procedural and cannot defeat a substantive input tax credit benefit recognised by the retrospective insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6). On that basis, rejection of the application as time-barred was not sustained, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on merits after notice. The respondent was permitted to verify actual entitlement, including whether input tax credit had in fact been availed and whether other statutory conditions were met.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
