Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC held that the limitation period for claiming a refund of excess taxes paid under Section 77 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 19 of the IGST Act and Rule 19(1A), commences from the date of deposit of the tax under the IGST Act, not from the date of SGST and CGST deposit. The Respondent authority erred in computing limitation from January 2018, rendering the statutory provisions and clarificatory Circular ineffective. The Court recognized the benevolent extension of limitation provided by the Circular for wrongful tax deposits. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund application was declared legally unsustainable and set aside. The petitioner's application for refund was allowed.
The HC held that the limitation period for claiming a refund of excess taxes paid under Section 77 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 19 of the IGST Act and Rule 19(1A), commences from the date of deposit of the tax under the IGST Act, not from the date of SGST and CGST deposit. The Respondent authority erred in computing limitation from January 2018, rendering the statutory provisions and clarificatory Circular ineffective. The Court recognized the benevolent extension of limitation provided by the Circular for wrongful tax deposits. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund application was declared legally unsustainable and set aside. The petitioner's application for refund was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
