Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
