Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
