Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
The HC held that under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, deficiency communication via Form GST RFD-03 is mandatory, and the period of deficiency communication is excluded from the two-year limitation under Section 54(1). In the case at hand, the Department claimed issuance of an SCN and rejection without reply, but the petitioner contended non-receipt or non-uploading of the SCN and rejection order, resulting in denial of the right to be heard. Since the final rejection order dated 2019 was only disclosed to the petitioner in 2025, the court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107. The Department's inability to produce the deficiency memo (Form GST RFD-03) undermined its justification to withhold the refund. The petition was accordingly disposed of, preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the refund rejection.
The HC held that under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, deficiency communication via Form GST RFD-03 is mandatory, and the period of deficiency communication is excluded from the two-year limitation under Section 54(1). In the case at hand, the Department claimed issuance of an SCN and rejection without reply, but the petitioner contended non-receipt or non-uploading of the SCN and rejection order, resulting in denial of the right to be heard. Since the final rejection order dated 2019 was only disclosed to the petitioner in 2025, the court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107. The Department's inability to produce the deficiency memo (Form GST RFD-03) undermined its justification to withhold the refund. The petition was accordingly disposed of, preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the refund rejection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
