Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
The HC held that the 60-day time limit under Section 54(7) of the WBGST Act, 2017 for passing an order on a refund application is mandatory and any non-compliance vitiates the order passed under Section 54(5). The PO must consider the applicant's reply and provide an opportunity of hearing within this period. The scrutiny and acknowledgment of the refund application must be completed within 15 days as per Rule 90(2). The rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and Appellate Authority was held unlawful as they exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning receipt of goods by the importer, which is irrelevant; the refund is contingent solely on payment of duties, evidenced by customs documents. The HC found the impugned orders and judgment legally flawed, set aside the judgment, and allowed the intra-court appeal due to the authorities' failure to adhere to mandatory timelines and exceed their statutory mandate.
The HC held that the 60-day time limit under Section 54(7) of the WBGST Act, 2017 for passing an order on a refund application is mandatory and any non-compliance vitiates the order passed under Section 54(5). The PO must consider the applicant's reply and provide an opportunity of hearing within this period. The scrutiny and acknowledgment of the refund application must be completed within 15 days as per Rule 90(2). The rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner and Appellate Authority was held unlawful as they exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning receipt of goods by the importer, which is irrelevant; the refund is contingent solely on payment of duties, evidenced by customs documents. The HC found the impugned orders and judgment legally flawed, set aside the judgment, and allowed the intra-court appeal due to the authorities' failure to adhere to mandatory timelines and exceed their statutory mandate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
