Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC found the refund claim for unutilized input tax credit time-barred u/s 54. The court interpreted Section 54(1) and 54(3) to establish that while refund claims can be initiated from the end of the relevant tax period, there exists a two-year limitation period from the relevant date. The petitioner's application filed on 21.03.2024 exceeded the statutory deadline of 09.03.2024. The court emphasized that Section 54(3) determines the starting point for refund claims, while Section 54(1) sets the outer time limit of two years. Given the clear statutory framework and the petitioner's failure to file within prescribed time limits, the petition was dismissed.
HC found the refund claim for unutilized input tax credit time-barred u/s 54. The court interpreted Section 54(1) and 54(3) to establish that while refund claims can be initiated from the end of the relevant tax period, there exists a two-year limitation period from the relevant date. The petitioner's application filed on 21.03.2024 exceeded the statutory deadline of 09.03.2024. The court emphasized that Section 54(3) determines the starting point for refund claims, while Section 54(1) sets the outer time limit of two years. Given the clear statutory framework and the petitioner's failure to file within prescribed time limits, the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.