TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders review of incorrect refund processing under GST laws, respondent acknowledges, next hearing scheduled</h1> The court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the incorrect processing of refund applications under GST laws. Notices were issued to the ... Refund of electronic cash ledger along with interest as notified in Notification No. 13/2017- Central Tax dated 28th June, 2017 - Applicability of proviso to Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and proviso to Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules. HELD THAT:- List on 12th October, 2020. Issues:1. Refund of electronic cash ledger under GST laws not processed correctly.2. Allegation of non-implementation of Section 39 of the CGST Act and corresponding Rules.3. Incorrect filing of refund applications in FORM GST RFD-01A and FORM GST RFD-01 instead of FORM GSTR-3.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the refund of an amount from the electronic cash ledger. The petitioner claimed that the refund procedure was not in compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Common Goods and Service Tax Electronic Portal was not processing the information correctly as mandated by the law.2. The petitioner's counsel further contended that Section 39 of the CGST Act had not been implemented by the government, despite being operational in the 'Statute Book' since July 1, 2017. The counsel highlighted that applications for refund, including those related to the electronic cash ledger, were being filed in FORM GST RFD-01A and FORM GST RFD-01 instead of FORM GSTR-3 since the introduction of GST in July 2017. The court issued notices to the respondents, and counter-affidavits were directed to be filed within four weeks.3. Respondent No. 1 accepted the notice through their counsel, acknowledging the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the incorrect processing of refund applications. Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5 also accepted the notice. The court scheduled the next hearing for October 12, 2020, and ordered the uploading of the order on the website while ensuring that a copy was forwarded to the counsels via email. The petitioner's concerns regarding the non-compliance with GST laws in processing refund applications were addressed through the initiation of legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
