Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's refund application for unutilized input tax credit. The court held that the Notification No. 14/2022 amending Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules is clarificatory and curative in nature, rectifying the anomaly in the refund formula. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that such a clarificatory amendment operates retrospectively. Therefore, the amended Rule 89(5) would apply to refund or rectification applications filed within the two-year period u/s 54(1) of the GST Act, irrespective of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circular restricting its applicability prospectively. Denying retrospective benefit would discriminate against assessees who applied for refunds before the amendment's issuance. The court quashed the circular's clarification treating the amendment as prospective and allowed the petitioner's refund claim based on the rectified formula.
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's refund application for unutilized input tax credit. The court held that the Notification No. 14/2022 amending Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules is clarificatory and curative in nature, rectifying the anomaly in the refund formula. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that such a clarificatory amendment operates retrospectively. Therefore, the amended Rule 89(5) would apply to refund or rectification applications filed within the two-year period u/s 54(1) of the GST Act, irrespective of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circular restricting its applicability prospectively. Denying retrospective benefit would discriminate against assessees who applied for refunds before the amendment's issuance. The court quashed the circular's clarification treating the amendment as prospective and allowed the petitioner's refund claim based on the rectified formula.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
