https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94025 CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the appellant's refund claim as time-barred under s.142(5) of the CGST Act, holding the embedded non-obstante clause must be read restrictively and does not override limiting provisions; the claim therefore fell outside the statutory period. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate merits of unjust enrichment at this stage, noting the presumption that a trader passes on tax and that credit-note assertions may require verification. Taxes paid pursuant to a valid self-assessment were not characterized as a mere deposit. Minor inconsistencies in prior orders were found immaterial. Appeal disposed of. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:06 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94025 CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the appellant's refund claim as time-barred under s.142(5) of the CGST Act, holding the embedded non-obstante clause must be read restrictively and does not override limiting provisions; the claim therefore fell outside the statutory period. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate merits of unjust enrichment at this stage, noting the presumption that a trader passes on tax and that credit-note assertions may require verification. Taxes paid pursuant to a valid self-assessment were not characterized as a mere deposit. Minor inconsistencies in prior orders were found immaterial. Appeal disposed of. Highlights Service Tax Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:06 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94025