Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
