Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the refund application deserved to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in view of the limitation under section 54 and the exclusion of the COVID-19 period.
Analysis: The petition was found to be covered by an earlier Division Bench order in identical facts. The relevant date for the refund claim was March 2018 and the limitation under section 54 stood affected by the exclusion of the period from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 for computation of limitation. In view of the binding effect of the earlier order and the exclusion directed for the limitation period, the impugned order could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the respondents were directed to decide the refund application afresh in accordance with law.