https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784557 The dominant issue was whether the amendment effective 01.02.2019 curtailing the period for filing GST refund applications could retrospectively defeat a taxpayer's vested right to claim refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure for periods prior to the amendment. The HC held that substantive amendments are presumed prospective unless expressly retrospective, and a vested refund right cannot be divested by later curtailment; accordingly, the unamended "relevant date" governed pre-amendment periods and the claims for July 2017-December 2018 and January-March 2019 were not time-barred. The HC further found the rejection for January-March 2019 for alleged non-receipt of eligible inputs lacked a reasoned finding. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination. en-us Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784557 The dominant issue was whether the amendment effective 01.02.2019 curtailing the period for filing GST refund applications could retrospectively defeat a taxpayer's vested right to claim refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure for periods prior to the amendment. The HC held that substantive amendments are presumed prospective unless expressly retrospective, and a vested refund right cannot be divested by later curtailment; accordingly, the unamended "relevant date" governed pre-amendment periods and the claims for July 2017-December 2018 and January-March 2019 were not time-barred. The HC further found the rejection for January-March 2019 for alleged non-receipt of eligible inputs lacked a reasoned finding. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination. Case-Laws GST Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784557