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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 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 taxpayer's refund application for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) filed on 07.11.2022 for periods prior to 18.07.2022 is maintainable, as it was within the statutory limitation period under Section 54(1). Following the precedent in Patanjali Foods case, the court quashed the department's rejection order, which improperly relied on Circular No.181/13/2022-GST. The refund claim was deemed valid, rejecting the administrative circular's attempt to create arbitrary classification of refund applications, thereby ensuring taxpayer's legal right to claim refund within prescribed timelines.
HC held that the taxpayer's refund application for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) filed on 07.11.2022 for periods prior to 18.07.2022 is maintainable, as it was within the statutory limitation period under Section 54(1). Following the precedent in Patanjali Foods case, the court quashed the department's rejection order, which improperly relied on Circular No.181/13/2022-GST. The refund claim was deemed valid, rejecting the administrative circular's attempt to create arbitrary classification of refund applications, thereby ensuring taxpayer's legal right to claim refund within prescribed timelines.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
