Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
