https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767449 HC held the refund claims were within the statutory limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act and that Circular No.125/44/2019 could not impose a fresh limitation contrary to the statute. The proviso to Rule 90(3) (inserted in 2021) was not retrospective and therefore inapplicable to the claims, and the amendment to Explanation 2(e) did not alter the limitation for claims filed before the amendment. Despite these findings, the petition was dismissed. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767449 HC held the refund claims were within the statutory limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act and that Circular No.125/44/2019 could not impose a fresh limitation contrary to the statute. The proviso to Rule 90(3) (inserted in 2021) was not retrospective and therefore inapplicable to the claims, and the amendment to Explanation 2(e) did not alter the limitation for claims filed before the amendment. Despite these findings, the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 05 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767449