Service permanent establishment requires non-auxiliary services, while arm's-length distributor remuneration precludes further profit attribution in I...
Make-available condition excludes standard SaaS subscription receipts where customers receive no independently usable technical knowledge after subscr...
Anonymous donation classification fails where charitable trusts maintain undisputed donor identity records and evidence corpus contributions' intended...
The HC allowed the petition and held that Input Tax Credit is an indefeasible right accruing on the date of purchase; therefore the CBITC clarification (Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST Pt.2) which confined entitlement to refunds only for applications filed up to 18.07.2022 is ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court found that Notification dated 13.07.2022 contains no embargo and that section 54 of the Act of 2017 affords a two-year limitation to claim refund; consequently the impugned provision was quashed to the extent it curtailed refund claims post-18.07.2022 and the petitioner's challenge was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and held that Input Tax Credit is an indefeasible right accruing on the date of purchase; therefore the CBITC clarification (Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST Pt.2) which confined entitlement to refunds only for applications filed up to 18.07.2022 is ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court found that Notification dated 13.07.2022 contains no embargo and that section 54 of the Act of 2017 affords a two-year limitation to claim refund; consequently the impugned provision was quashed to the extent it curtailed refund claims post-18.07.2022 and the petitioner's challenge was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
