Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
