Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95833 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'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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
