Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. HC set aside the impugned orders of respondent no. 3 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, and expressly held that the refund application was within limitation. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the merits of the refund claim in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
HC held that Section 54 CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) CGST Rules are directory, not mandatory, for refund of tax wrongly paid under a bona fide mistake regarding the nature of supply. Since payment of IGST to Central authorities and subsequent correct payment to State authorities were undisputed, retention of IGST by the Centre would offend Article 265 and principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. HC set aside the impugned orders of respondent no. 3 rejecting the refund claim as time-barred, and expressly held that the refund application was within limitation. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the merits of the refund claim in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
