Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
