Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2741 to 2760 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the limitation provision applicable to refund claims is the one in force on the date of the underlying transaction, so the amended Explanation 2(e) to Section 54 of the CGST Act could not retrospectively curtail refund rights for periods before 1 February 2019. It further held that refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies is governed by Explanation 2(e), not Explanation 2(a), because such claims depend on credit accrual, ledger reflection, return filing and remaining unutilised. The orders rejecting the claims as time-barred were set aside and the refund applications were directed to be processed on merits.
The High Court held that the limitation provision applicable to refund claims is the one in force on the date of the underlying transaction, so the amended Explanation 2(e) to Section 54 of the CGST Act could not retrospectively curtail refund rights for periods before 1 February 2019. It further held that refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies is governed by Explanation 2(e), not Explanation 2(a), because such claims depend on credit accrual, ledger reflection, return filing and remaining unutilised. The orders rejecting the claims as time-barred were set aside and the refund applications were directed to be processed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
