Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
