Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
