Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 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 the Notification dated 05 July 2022 excludes the period from 01 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from the limitation period for filing refund applications under Sections 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Respondents erred in rejecting the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The impugned orders dated 22 June 2022 and 27 October 2021 were set aside. The 2nd Respondent was directed to reconsider the refund application on merits, disregarding the limitation bar, and to pass a reasoned order after hearing the Petitioner within 60 days from the order's upload. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC held that the Notification dated 05 July 2022 excludes the period from 01 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from the limitation period for filing refund applications under Sections 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Respondents erred in rejecting the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The impugned orders dated 22 June 2022 and 27 October 2021 were set aside. The 2nd Respondent was directed to reconsider the refund application on merits, disregarding the limitation bar, and to pass a reasoned order after hearing the Petitioner within 60 days from the order's upload. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.