Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC dismissed a petition seeking to extend the benefit of the proviso to Rule 90(3) of CGST Rules to exclude days between filing refund claims and issuance of deficiency memos for limitation calculation. The court determined that the petitioner's refund claims for zero-rated supplies (exports) made during July-September 2017 were filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54 of CGST Act. The court held that Circular No.125/44/2019 could not impose a fresh limitation period contrary to statutory provisions, and the 2021 amendment to Rule 90(3) could not be given retrospective effect. The amendment to Explanation 2(e) to Section 54 was deemed inapplicable as the petitioner's claims predated this amendment.
The HC dismissed a petition seeking to extend the benefit of the proviso to Rule 90(3) of CGST Rules to exclude days between filing refund claims and issuance of deficiency memos for limitation calculation. The court determined that the petitioner's refund claims for zero-rated supplies (exports) made during July-September 2017 were filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54 of CGST Act. The court held that Circular No.125/44/2019 could not impose a fresh limitation period contrary to statutory provisions, and the 2021 amendment to Rule 90(3) could not be given retrospective effect. The amendment to Explanation 2(e) to Section 54 was deemed inapplicable as the petitioner's claims predated this amendment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
