Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC struck down para 2(2) of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 as ultra vires Section 54 of the GST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The circular had improperly applied restrictions from the 13.7.2022 notification to all refund applications filed after 13.7.2022, even for periods predating the notification. The Court found this created an arbitrary and discriminatory classification among assessees based solely on filing date, despite applications being within the statutory limitation period. Following its precedent in Ascent Meditech, the HC ruled that such artificial classification was impermissible, particularly as the notification itself had prospective effect commencing July 18, 2022. Petition allowed.
The HC struck down para 2(2) of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 as ultra vires Section 54 of the GST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The circular had improperly applied restrictions from the 13.7.2022 notification to all refund applications filed after 13.7.2022, even for periods predating the notification. The Court found this created an arbitrary and discriminatory classification among assessees based solely on filing date, despite applications being within the statutory limitation period. Following its precedent in Ascent Meditech, the HC ruled that such artificial classification was impermissible, particularly as the notification itself had prospective effect commencing July 18, 2022. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
