TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court dismisses writ petition challenging tax refund denial under GST Act; directs petitioner to appeal to Appellate Authority</h1> <h3>M/s. Jaigopal Murlidhar (partnership firm) and M/s. Jindal Trading Company Versus Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax, Uttarakhand another</h3> M/s. Jaigopal Murlidhar (partnership firm) and M/s. Jindal Trading Company Versus Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax, Uttarakhand another - TMI Issues:1. Refund of tax under Section 54 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.2. Rejection of refund applications by Assistant Commissioner Goods and Services Tax.3. Writ petition seeking relief for quashing impugned orders and commanding assessment of refund claim.4. Preliminary objection raised regarding appealability of decisions/orders under Section 107 (1) of GST Act.5. Dismissal of writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority.Analysis:The petitioner had applied for a tax refund under Section 54 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the Assistant Commissioner Goods and Services Tax rejected the applications multiple times. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition seeking relief to quash the impugned orders and command the assessment of the refund claim for specific periods.The State's counsel raised a preliminary objection, citing Section 107 (1) of the GST Act, which makes every order passed by an adjudicating authority appealable. The Court acknowledged the validity of this argument, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority for further recourse.Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel assured the Court that an appeal would be filed within three weeks. In response, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to expedite the decision-making process, preferably resolving the appeal within six months from the date of filing. This directive aimed to ensure a timely resolution of the petitioner's appeal and subsequent refund claim assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
