Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
