Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
The HC set aside the impugned orders dated 23 June 2020 and 18 August 2021 and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on the refund application under s.54(3) of the CGST Act, noting that Rule 90(3)'s validity relative to s.54(3) and the limitation computation issue warranted reconsideration. The proper officer is directed to decide the application de novo after considering the Gujarat HC decision and any authorities the Petitioner wishes to rely upon, to afford a personal hearing, and to pass a reasoned order. Disposal must occur expeditiously and, in any event, within three months of the Petitioner filing an authenticated copy of this order with supporting authorities. Petition disposed.
The HC set aside the impugned orders dated 23 June 2020 and 18 August 2021 and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on the refund application under s.54(3) of the CGST Act, noting that Rule 90(3)'s validity relative to s.54(3) and the limitation computation issue warranted reconsideration. The proper officer is directed to decide the application de novo after considering the Gujarat HC decision and any authorities the Petitioner wishes to rely upon, to afford a personal hearing, and to pass a reasoned order. Disposal must occur expeditiously and, in any event, within three months of the Petitioner filing an authenticated copy of this order with supporting authorities. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.