https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463782 HC held that the Supreme Court decision remains binding and rejected appellants' contention that Section 5 of the Amended Act, 2016 applies retrospectively to transactions before the amendment's commencement. The court observed that the pendency of a review petition in the SC, without a stay, does not justify disturbing the Tribunal's orders; mere pendency is not a ground for interference. All civil miscellaneous appeals were disposed of, while leaving appellants free to pursue remedies based on the outcome of the pending review petition in the SC. en-us Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 13:55:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463782 HC held that the Supreme Court decision remains binding and rejected appellants' contention that Section 5 of the Amended Act, 2016 applies retrospectively to transactions before the amendment's commencement. The court observed that the pendency of a review petition in the SC, without a stay, does not justify disturbing the Tribunal's orders; mere pendency is not a ground for interference. All civil miscellaneous appeals were disposed of, while leaving appellants free to pursue remedies based on the outcome of the pending review petition in the SC. Case-Laws Benami Property Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463782