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 ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund claim rejected solely on non-compliance of time limit u/s 34(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Appellant authority noted facts, grounds, submissions but dismissed appeal without addressing misinterpretation of Section 34(2) raised by appellants. High Court quashed orders of authorities, remanded matter to consider refund application u/s 54 based on documents, undisputed TPL certificate, and pass order in accordance with law. Petition disposed.
Refund claim rejected solely on non-compliance of time limit u/s 34(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Appellant authority noted facts, grounds, submissions but dismissed appeal without addressing misinterpretation of Section 34(2) raised by appellants. High Court quashed orders of authorities, remanded matter to consider refund application u/s 54 based on documents, undisputed TPL certificate, and pass order in accordance with law. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
