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
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Case Laws New
Ref Provisions New
Plus +
Source NTF
Summary
Similar
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
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
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.