Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
