Time Relevance of Expense: commission deductible when incurred; restructuring transfers, lease obligations upheld; unenforceable sale agreement bars l...
Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
