Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
