Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
