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 refund claims for GST paid on ocean freight (CIF imports) consequent to the invalidation of Notifications Nos.8 & 10/2017 are maintainable notwithstanding the statutory period under Section 54, because the Supreme Court's judgment declaring those notifications void operates retrospectively absent an express prospective application. The court noted the doctrine of prospective overruling applies only where the Supreme Court so directs and found no such direction. Reliance on prior HC precedent considering similar facts was endorsed. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the refund applications as time-barred were set aside and the petition allowed, directing consideration of the refund claims on merits.
The HC held that refund claims for GST paid on ocean freight (CIF imports) consequent to the invalidation of Notifications Nos.8 & 10/2017 are maintainable notwithstanding the statutory period under Section 54, because the Supreme Court's judgment declaring those notifications void operates retrospectively absent an express prospective application. The court noted the doctrine of prospective overruling applies only where the Supreme Court so directs and found no such direction. Reliance on prior HC precedent considering similar facts was endorsed. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the refund applications as time-barred were set aside and the petition allowed, directing consideration of the refund claims on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
