Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
