Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The petitioner's application for GST refund, filed on 08.09.2020, was within the two-year limitation period prescribed u/s 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents initially treated this application as timely but later rejected a subsequent application dated 28.03.2020 as time-barred, despite it being a continuation of the original timely filed application. The respondents failed to justify their contradictory stance and provide cogent reasons for rejecting the claim. Their evasive objections and failure to address the original timely filed application led the Court to draw an adverse inference. Consequently, the deficiency memo issued by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claim was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
The petitioner's application for GST refund, filed on 08.09.2020, was within the two-year limitation period prescribed u/s 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents initially treated this application as timely but later rejected a subsequent application dated 28.03.2020 as time-barred, despite it being a continuation of the original timely filed application. The respondents failed to justify their contradictory stance and provide cogent reasons for rejecting the claim. Their evasive objections and failure to address the original timely filed application led the Court to draw an adverse inference. Consequently, the deficiency memo issued by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claim was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
