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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the conciliation agreement dated 09.10.2020 constitutes the relevant date for calculating limitation period under Section 54 of CGST Act. The settlement agreement, recognized under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, is equivalent to a civil court decree. Consequently, DMRC's refund applications filed on 17.01.2021 and 21.03.2021 were deemed timely. The court directed processing of refund with applicable interest within one month, setting aside the impugned orders and disposing of the petition accordingly.
HC held that the conciliation agreement dated 09.10.2020 constitutes the relevant date for calculating limitation period under Section 54 of CGST Act. The settlement agreement, recognized under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, is equivalent to a civil court decree. Consequently, DMRC's refund applications filed on 17.01.2021 and 21.03.2021 were deemed timely. The court directed processing of refund with applicable interest within one month, setting aside the impugned orders and disposing of the petition accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
