Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
