Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The petitioner filed a refund application within the two-year limitation period for the year 2017-2018 on 17.09.2018, and subsequently filed a fresh refund application on 2.01.2020 after receiving a deficiency memo. The High Court held that the original refund application filed on 17.09.2018 would be considered a proper refund application within the limitation period, and the fresh refund application filed pursuant to the deficiency memo would be considered a continuation of the first refund application. The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 rejecting the refund application on the ground of limitation was quashed and set aside, and the refund application filed on 17.09.2018 was restored for consideration on merits by the proper officer in accordance with the law.
The petitioner filed a refund application within the two-year limitation period for the year 2017-2018 on 17.09.2018, and subsequently filed a fresh refund application on 2.01.2020 after receiving a deficiency memo. The High Court held that the original refund application filed on 17.09.2018 would be considered a proper refund application within the limitation period, and the fresh refund application filed pursuant to the deficiency memo would be considered a continuation of the first refund application. The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 rejecting the refund application on the ground of limitation was quashed and set aside, and the refund application filed on 17.09.2018 was restored for consideration on merits by the proper officer in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
