Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The High Court declined to consider refund applications u/s 54...
Denial of GST refund due to improper application filing. Court cites relevant rules for manual applications. Petitioner's case remanded for fresh review.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The High Court declined to consider refund applications u/s 54 (3) of GST for FY 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 due to non-filing of RFD-01 forms as petitioner was unregistered. Citing precedent from Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, assessing authority must consider Rule 97A allowing manual applications. Petitioner, though unregistered, eligible u/s 54 (1) for refund. Refusal based on lack of registration and failure to consider Rule 41 on credit transfer deemed incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration within four weeks. Petition allowed for remand.
The High Court declined to consider refund applications u/s 54 (3) of GST for FY 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 due to non-filing of RFD-01 forms as petitioner was unregistered. Citing precedent from Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, assessing authority must consider Rule 97A allowing manual applications. Petitioner, though unregistered, eligible u/s 54 (1) for refund. Refusal based on lack of registration and failure to consider Rule 41 on credit transfer deemed incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration within four weeks. Petition allowed for remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
