Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Retrospective applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) governing refund of unutilised input tax credit on input services was treated as settled: the Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in VKC Footsteps and the coordinate bench view in Ascent Meditech that Notification No. 14/2022 is retrospective, curative and clarificatory. As that legal position was undisputed, the deficiency memo rejecting the refund claim could not stand. The refund application was required to be processed under the amended formula and the law as declared.
Retrospective applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) governing refund of unutilised input tax credit on input services was treated as settled: the Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in VKC Footsteps and the coordinate bench view in Ascent Meditech that Notification No. 14/2022 is retrospective, curative and clarificatory. As that legal position was undisputed, the deficiency memo rejecting the refund claim could not stand. The refund application was required to be processed under the amended formula and the law as declared.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.