Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC held that notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act, purportedly extending limitation periods, must be strictly construed as exceptions to Section 73. The impugned notifications lacked a valid recommendation from the GST Council based on relevant material, rendering them unsustainable. While the GST Council's recommendation is mandatory, it is not binding on the government; however, post-issuance ratification by the Council does not cure the defect of absence of prior recommendation. The Court distinguished between extension of limitation (Section 168A) and computation of limitation (Supreme Court's orders under Article 142), holding that the notifications erroneously diminished limitation periods contrary to the Supreme Court's orders, thus violating legislative intent. Consequently, the notifications were quashed, and all matters were remanded to assessing authorities for fresh adjudication consistent with these findings.
The HC held that notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act, purportedly extending limitation periods, must be strictly construed as exceptions to Section 73. The impugned notifications lacked a valid recommendation from the GST Council based on relevant material, rendering them unsustainable. While the GST Council's recommendation is mandatory, it is not binding on the government; however, post-issuance ratification by the Council does not cure the defect of absence of prior recommendation. The Court distinguished between extension of limitation (Section 168A) and computation of limitation (Supreme Court's orders under Article 142), holding that the notifications erroneously diminished limitation periods contrary to the Supreme Court's orders, thus violating legislative intent. Consequently, the notifications were quashed, and all matters were remanded to assessing authorities for fresh adjudication consistent with these findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
