Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 quashed and set aside the impugned order that rejected the applicant's refund application in Form RFD-06 as time-barred, holding that the period from filing the original refund claim in Form RFD-01 until communication of the deficiency in Form RFD-03 must be excluded when computing the two-year limitation for a rectified refund claim under Rule 90(3) CGST Rules. Relying on prior HC precedent, the court treated the rectified filing as a continuation of the original proceedings rather than a fresh cause. The third rectified refund application filed by the applicant is restored for fresh adjudication on merits by the proper officer. Petition allowed.
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order that rejected the applicant's refund application in Form RFD-06 as time-barred, holding that the period from filing the original refund claim in Form RFD-01 until communication of the deficiency in Form RFD-03 must be excluded when computing the two-year limitation for a rectified refund claim under Rule 90(3) CGST Rules. Relying on prior HC precedent, the court treated the rectified filing as a continuation of the original proceedings rather than a fresh cause. The third rectified refund application filed by the applicant is restored for fresh adjudication on merits by the proper officer. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
