Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act does not create a fresh refund right where the underlying CENVAT credit entitlement had already expired under the six-month limit from the duty-paying document. The Tribunal held that credit on the challan dated 09.05.2019 could be taken only until 09.11.2019, so a later transitional refund claim was time-barred. The COVID limitation extension could not revive a claim that had already lapsed before the pandemic period. It also held that excess payment against the bill of entry was customs duty, so any refund had to be claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act; reliance on the EODC was misplaced.
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act does not create a fresh refund right where the underlying CENVAT credit entitlement had already expired under the six-month limit from the duty-paying document. The Tribunal held that credit on the challan dated 09.05.2019 could be taken only until 09.11.2019, so a later transitional refund claim was time-barred. The COVID limitation extension could not revive a claim that had already lapsed before the pandemic period. It also held that excess payment against the bill of entry was customs duty, so any refund had to be claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act; reliance on the EODC was misplaced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
