Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 4915 
