Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
HC ruled that rejection of GST pre-deposit refund application on grounds of time bar under Section 54 is invalid. The court interpreted the word "may" in Section 54 as directory rather than mandatory, following SC precedent. The judgment emphasized that statutory pre-deposit refund is a vested right after successful appeal, and cannot be forfeited using Section 54's time limitation. The court noted this would conflict with the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of Limitation Act for money suits. Since pre-deposit was made from assessee's own funds without unjust enrichment, restricting refund by reading "may" as "shall" would be arbitrary. The deficiency memo rejecting the refund application was quashed.
HC ruled that rejection of GST pre-deposit refund application on grounds of time bar under Section 54 is invalid. The court interpreted the word "may" in Section 54 as directory rather than mandatory, following SC precedent. The judgment emphasized that statutory pre-deposit refund is a vested right after successful appeal, and cannot be forfeited using Section 54's time limitation. The court noted this would conflict with the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of Limitation Act for money suits. Since pre-deposit was made from assessee's own funds without unjust enrichment, restricting refund by reading "may" as "shall" would be arbitrary. The deficiency memo rejecting the refund application was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
