Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the appellant is eligible for refund of input services as claimed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007. The time limit for filing refund claims was extended from 60 days to six months by Notification No. 32/2008-S.T. dated 18.11.2008, which has retrospective application. The substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied merely on procedural grounds of filing claims beyond 60 days for invoices relating to the relevant quarter. The CESTAT relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s Rungta Mines Ltd.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the appellant is eligible for refund of input services as claimed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007. The time limit for filing refund claims was extended from 60 days to six months by Notification No. 32/2008-S.T. dated 18.11.2008, which has retrospective application. The substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied merely on procedural grounds of filing claims beyond 60 days for invoices relating to the relevant quarter. The CESTAT relied on its earlier decision in Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s Rungta Mines Ltd.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
