Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Refund was rejected as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act by treating a later revised application (filed after a deficiency memo) as the relevant date for limitation. The Court held that limitation must be computed from the date of the initial refund application, and a subsequent revised filing pursuant to a deficiency memo cannot shift the limitation start point; the contrary approach was erroneous and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Refund was rejected as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act by treating a later revised application (filed after a deficiency memo) as the relevant date for limitation. The Court held that limitation must be computed from the date of the initial refund application, and a subsequent revised filing pursuant to a deficiency memo cannot shift the limitation start point; the contrary approach was erroneous and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
