Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC ruled that rejection of GST pre-deposit refund application on grounds of time bar under Section 54 is invalid. The court interpreted the word "may" in Section 54 as directory rather than mandatory, following SC precedent. The judgment emphasized that statutory pre-deposit refund is a vested right after successful appeal, and cannot be forfeited using Section 54's time limitation. The court noted this would conflict with the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of Limitation Act for money suits. Since pre-deposit was made from assessee's own funds without unjust enrichment, restricting refund by reading "may" as "shall" would be arbitrary. The deficiency memo rejecting the refund application was quashed.
HC ruled that rejection of GST pre-deposit refund application on grounds of time bar under Section 54 is invalid. The court interpreted the word "may" in Section 54 as directory rather than mandatory, following SC precedent. The judgment emphasized that statutory pre-deposit refund is a vested right after successful appeal, and cannot be forfeited using Section 54's time limitation. The court noted this would conflict with the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of Limitation Act for money suits. Since pre-deposit was made from assessee's own funds without unjust enrichment, restricting refund by reading "may" as "shall" would be arbitrary. The deficiency memo rejecting the refund application was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
