Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
