Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
HC ruled that the petitioner's refund claim for accumulated ITC was improperly rejected. Applying precedent from Patanjali case, the court held that filing a refund application after 18.07.2022 does not automatically disqualify an applicant from seeking refund within the statutory two-year limitation period. The notification creating an arbitrary classification among assessees based on filing date was deemed invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection orders dated 24.02.2023 and 30.01.2023, thereby allowing the petitioner's refund claim and upholding the statutory right to file claims within the prescribed time limit.
HC ruled that the petitioner's refund claim for accumulated ITC was improperly rejected. Applying precedent from Patanjali case, the court held that filing a refund application after 18.07.2022 does not automatically disqualify an applicant from seeking refund within the statutory two-year limitation period. The notification creating an arbitrary classification among assessees based on filing date was deemed invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection orders dated 24.02.2023 and 30.01.2023, thereby allowing the petitioner's refund claim and upholding the statutory right to file claims within the prescribed time limit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
