Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC adjudicated writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Clause 2 of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 issued under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. Concurring with the view of another HC, it held that the Circular is ultra vires to the extent it retrospectively applies restrictions introduced by the Notification dated 13.07.2022 to all refund applications filed on or after 18.07.2022. The HC found no distinguishing circumstance or justification advanced by the revenue. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, and the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 04.06.2024 were quashed.
The HC adjudicated writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Clause 2 of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 issued under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. Concurring with the view of another HC, it held that the Circular is ultra vires to the extent it retrospectively applies restrictions introduced by the Notification dated 13.07.2022 to all refund applications filed on or after 18.07.2022. The HC found no distinguishing circumstance or justification advanced by the revenue. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, and the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 04.06.2024 were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.