Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 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 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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
