Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
HC quashed the impugned order denying refund of IGST to the petitioner-assessee and directed grant of refund. It held that mere suspicion of excess ITC availment cannot justify withholding refund through a notice under Rule 92(3) CGST Rules when no discrepancy in the refund claim is established. Relying on SC principles, HC held that initiation of recovery proceedings for excess ITC requires issuance of a proper show cause notice under Sections 73 or 74 CGST Act, with adherence to natural justice. As no such notice existed and the audit report did not indicate wrongful ITC for FY 2019-20, non-grant of refund was held unsustainable.
HC quashed the impugned order denying refund of IGST to the petitioner-assessee and directed grant of refund. It held that mere suspicion of excess ITC availment cannot justify withholding refund through a notice under Rule 92(3) CGST Rules when no discrepancy in the refund claim is established. Relying on SC principles, HC held that initiation of recovery proceedings for excess ITC requires issuance of a proper show cause notice under Sections 73 or 74 CGST Act, with adherence to natural justice. As no such notice existed and the audit report did not indicate wrongful ITC for FY 2019-20, non-grant of refund was held unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
