Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The imposition of a time limit for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. The insertion of sub-section (5) u/s 16 of the CGST Act, effective from July 1, 2017, provided that for invoices or debit notes pertaining to Financial Years 2017-18 to 2020-21, the registered person could take ITC in any return filed until November 30, 2021. However, this decision was taken without considering the stipulation in sub-section (5) of Section 16, effective from July 1, 2017. Consequently, the High Court remitted the matter to the authority to pass a fresh order considering the implication of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act.
The imposition of a time limit for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. The insertion of sub-section (5) u/s 16 of the CGST Act, effective from July 1, 2017, provided that for invoices or debit notes pertaining to Financial Years 2017-18 to 2020-21, the registered person could take ITC in any return filed until November 30, 2021. However, this decision was taken without considering the stipulation in sub-section (5) of Section 16, effective from July 1, 2017. Consequently, the High Court remitted the matter to the authority to pass a fresh order considering the implication of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.