Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
