Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the deficiency memos rejecting the petitioner's refund applications under S.54 CGST Act were legally untenable. The HC found the refund applications complete and accompanied by requisite documents, and ruled that a deficiency memo can be issued only where an application is incomplete or deficient. It further held that amounts deposited in DRC-03 during a search, purportedly under S.74(5), were not voluntary payments and therefore could validly be claimed as refund under S.54. The HC quashed the impugned deficiency memos dated 20.05.2025 and 21.05.2025, and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for the DRC-03 payments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the deficiency memos rejecting the petitioner's refund applications under S.54 CGST Act were legally untenable. The HC found the refund applications complete and accompanied by requisite documents, and ruled that a deficiency memo can be issued only where an application is incomplete or deficient. It further held that amounts deposited in DRC-03 during a search, purportedly under S.74(5), were not voluntary payments and therefore could validly be claimed as refund under S.54. The HC quashed the impugned deficiency memos dated 20.05.2025 and 21.05.2025, and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for the DRC-03 payments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
