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>Refund Claim Reassessed After Court Finds Non-application of Mind in Document Submission Review; Fair Hearing Ordered</h1> <h3>PCA Automobiles India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Sudharsan Versus Assistant Commissioner, Poonamallee Division, Chennai</h3> PCA Automobiles India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Sudharsan Versus Assistant Commissioner, Poonamallee Division, Chennai ... The present writ petition challenges an Order in Original in Form GST RFD -06 dated 27.11.2024, on the ground of non-application of mind. The order rejected the petitioner's claim of refund citing lack of filed details and supporting documents.The core legal question is whether the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind in rejecting the petitioner's refund claim despite the submission of requested documents.The petitioner had received an Email dated 22.10.2024 requesting specific details related to the refund claim. The petitioner responded with the required details via emails on 29.10.2024, 04.11.2024, and 08.11.2024. Subsequently, a notice dated 13.11.2024 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim and requesting further details, to which the petitioner replied on 26.11.2024 with the majority of the documents sought.The Court noted that despite the petitioner's submission of documents, the impugned order proceeded as if no documents were filed, indicating a lack of proper consideration. The respondent conceded to pass fresh orders upon this revelation.The Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the respondents to reevaluate the claim after providing the petitioner with a fair hearing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.In conclusion, the Court found that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and directed the respondents to reconsider the refund claim after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
TaxTMI 