Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether the 01.02.2019 amendment curtailing the time for refund applications could retrospectively extinguish accrued entitlement to refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure was determined by applying the presumption against retrospectivity to substantive curtailment of vested rights; absent express retrospective operation, the unamended "relevant date" continued to govern periods prior to the amendment, and the refund claims were not time-barred, including for July 2017-December 2018 (also within extended time under a notification) and January-March 2019 under Section 54. The rejection for January-March 2019 for alleged non-receipt of eligible inputs was found unreasoned. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination. - HC
Whether the 01.02.2019 amendment curtailing the time for refund applications could retrospectively extinguish accrued entitlement to refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure was determined by applying the presumption against retrospectivity to substantive curtailment of vested rights; absent express retrospective operation, the unamended "relevant date" continued to govern periods prior to the amendment, and the refund claims were not time-barred, including for July 2017-December 2018 (also within extended time under a notification) and January-March 2019 under Section 54. The rejection for January-March 2019 for alleged non-receipt of eligible inputs was found unreasoned. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
