Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
