Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
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 
