Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
