Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Court orders respondents to file refund affidavit within two weeks, addressing petitioner's concerns. Next hearing on 7th Nov. The Court directed the respondents to submit a specific affidavit addressing the refund issue within two weeks, with a copy provided to the petitioner's ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court orders respondents to file refund affidavit within two weeks, addressing petitioner's concerns. Next hearing on 7th Nov.
The Court directed the respondents to submit a specific affidavit addressing the refund issue within two weeks, with a copy provided to the petitioner's counsel for response before the next hearing scheduled for 7th November, 2019. This step aims to address the petitioner's concerns regarding the excessive cash outflow and seek a resolution through a structured legal process.
Issues: 1. Claiming refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 due to non-operationalization of GSTR Forms. 2. Glitches in the system leading to excessive tax payments and cash outflow. 3. Mechanism for refund of excessive amount paid. 4. Directions for filing affidavit and response.
Analysis: 1. The Court initially heard arguments on 20th January, 2019, regarding the petitioner's claim for refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, due to the non-operationalization of GSTR Forms-2, 2A & 3. The respondents sought time to seek instructions on the mode of claiming refund, and the matter was listed for further hearing on 14th February, 2019.
2. Subsequently, on 14th February, 2019, the respondents requested an adjournment to await instructions from the GST Policy Wing. When the case was taken up on 1st May 2019, the Court directed that the returns filed by the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, releasing it from the category of 'Part Heard'.
3. In the recent proceedings, a pass over was requested by the respondents due to the Board's position, indicating a potential delay in hearing the matter. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that system glitches had resulted in the petitioner overpaying taxes significantly, amounting to approximately Rs. 923 crores. The Court had earlier asked the respondents to explore potential mechanisms for the petitioner to claim a refund of this excess amount.
4. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to submit a specific affidavit addressing the refund issue within two weeks, with a copy provided to the petitioner's counsel for response before the next hearing scheduled for 7th November, 2019. This step aims to address the petitioner's concerns regarding the excessive cash outflow and seek a resolution through a structured legal process.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
