Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the...
Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere deposit
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the appellant's refund claim as time-barred under s.142(5) of the CGST Act, holding the embedded non-obstante clause must be read restrictively and does not override limiting provisions; the claim therefore fell outside the statutory period. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate merits of unjust enrichment at this stage, noting the presumption that a trader passes on tax and that credit-note assertions may require verification. Taxes paid pursuant to a valid self-assessment were not characterized as a mere deposit. Minor inconsistencies in prior orders were found immaterial. Appeal disposed of.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the appellant's refund claim as time-barred under s.142(5) of the CGST Act, holding the embedded non-obstante clause must be read restrictively and does not override limiting provisions; the claim therefore fell outside the statutory period. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate merits of unjust enrichment at this stage, noting the presumption that a trader passes on tax and that credit-note assertions may require verification. Taxes paid pursuant to a valid self-assessment were not characterized as a mere deposit. Minor inconsistencies in prior orders were found immaterial. Appeal disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.