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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
