Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
Resale price method upheld for distribution; assessee's margins accepted and certain transfer-pricing adjustments deleted due to documented reimbursem...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9821 to 9840 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.