Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
