https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769877 SC refused to interfere with the HC judgment quashing the rejection of the taxpayer's refund claim of unutilized input tax credit. The HC had set aside the order dated 24.08.2023 and held that Circular No. 181/22 dated 10.11.2022, to the extent it stated that the amendment to Rule 89(5) was not clarificatory, was invalid. The HC further held that Notification No. 14/2022, amending Rule 89(5), is curative and clarificatory and therefore applies retrospectively to refund or rectification applications filed within two years under section 54(1) of the Act. The SLP was dismissed under Article 136. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769877 SC refused to interfere with the HC judgment quashing the rejection of the taxpayer's refund claim of unutilized input tax credit. The HC had set aside the order dated 24.08.2023 and held that Circular No. 181/22 dated 10.11.2022, to the extent it stated that the amendment to Rule 89(5) was not clarificatory, was invalid. The HC further held that Notification No. 14/2022, amending Rule 89(5), is curative and clarificatory and therefore applies retrospectively to refund or rectification applications filed within two years under section 54(1) of the Act. The SLP was dismissed under Article 136. Case-Laws GST Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769877