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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The petitioner's refund claim was within the limitation period prescribed u/s 53(3) of the CGST Act, as the period from March 2020 to February 2022 was excluded from the limitation period based on the GST Council's recommendations, which the respondent did not dispute. The impugned order was set aside, and the HC allowed the present petition, holding that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the GST Council's recommendations.
The petitioner's refund claim was within the limitation period prescribed u/s 53(3) of the CGST Act, as the period from March 2020 to February 2022 was excluded from the limitation period based on the GST Council's recommendations, which the respondent did not dispute. The impugned order was set aside, and the HC allowed the present petition, holding that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the GST Council's recommendations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
