Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
