Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

Delhi HC: 90 Days Period Prescribed in Rule 117 of CGST Rules Not Mandatory - (06 May 2020)

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Delhi High Court has held that Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which prescribes 90 days for filing for transactional credits, is not mandatory in nature, but is merely directional. The period of three years, as prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 will be considered as a reasonable period for availing such transactional credits.

Tags : DELHI HIGH COURT   90 DAYS PERIOD  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved