Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
