1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Bombay HC orders refund applications processed within four weeks despite authority dispute over IGST refunds</h1> The Bombay HC directed respondents to process pending refund applications within four weeks after petitioners sought time-bound resolution of unaddressed ... Refund of IGST - direction to process refund applications, which remained unaddressed despite multiple correspondences - HELD THAT:- The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to dispose of the petitioners’ applications in accordance with law and on their own merits within 4 weeks in terms of the statement made on their behalf. If respondents 2 and 3 are of the opinion that GST Authorities are the appropriate authorities after hearing the petitioners and considering the circular relied upon by the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 shall transfer such applications to the appropriate GST Authorities. Petition disposed off. In the case before the Bombay High Court, petitioners sought directions for the competent authority to process their refund applications, which remained unaddressed despite multiple correspondences. The petitioners requested a time-bound resolution within four weeks. Mr. Karan Adik, representing the respondents, assured that the applications would be resolved within four weeks, including a personal hearing and a reasoned order. However, there was a dispute regarding the appropriate authority for sanctioning IGST refunds. Mr. Rahul Sarda, for the petitioners, cited a circular suggesting respondents 2 and 3 were the correct authorities, while the respondents argued the GST Authority was appropriate.The court directed respondents 2 and 3 to address the applications within four weeks, considering the circular and the petitioners' arguments. If deemed necessary, the applications should be transferred to the GST Authorities, who must also resolve them within four weeks. The court did not determine which authority was appropriate, and the petition was disposed of without cost orders. All parties were instructed to act on the authenticated order copy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
