Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.