Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC disposed of a writ petition seeking direction for processing GST refund applications filed in form GSTRFD 01 for multiple tax periods from February 2020 to March 2023. The court acknowledged that while proper officers identified deficiencies in the applications, these deficiencies were not reflected in the portal's view site, preventing the petitioner from being aware of them. Applying Section 54 of the WBGST/CGST Act 2017 and Rules 89-90 of the WBGST/CGST Rules 2017, the HC directed respondent authorities to address the portal issue with appropriate authorities. The court permitted the first petitioner to re-file refund applications for the specified periods, treating the deficiency memo as communicated on the judgment date, ensuring the petitioner would not suffer due to lack of awareness of deficiencies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
