Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Input tax credit was denied on the ground that returns for May 2018-March 2019 were not filed within the time limit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the subsequently introduced Section 16(5) creates an overriding entitlement, since it begins with a non obstante clause and imposes only the condition that the relevant returns be filed on or before 30 November 2021; upon such filing, the limitation under Section 16(4) becomes inapplicable. The earlier adverse order in prior proceedings challenging Section 16(4) did not bar relief, as Section 16(5) furnished a fresh statutory basis. Relief was granted and the petition was disposed of. - HC
Input tax credit was denied on the ground that returns for May 2018-March 2019 were not filed within the time limit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the subsequently introduced Section 16(5) creates an overriding entitlement, since it begins with a non obstante clause and imposes only the condition that the relevant returns be filed on or before 30 November 2021; upon such filing, the limitation under Section 16(4) becomes inapplicable. The earlier adverse order in prior proceedings challenging Section 16(4) did not bar relief, as Section 16(5) furnished a fresh statutory basis. Relief was granted and the petition was disposed of. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.