Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 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 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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
