Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
Rejection of IGST refund for exported goods solely on the ground that the exporter had not furnished bond/LUT prior to export under Rule 96A of the CGST Rules was held unsustainable because the governing circular clarifies that non-furnishing of LUT/bond is not an incurable or strictly mandatory defect and may be accepted ex post facto depending on the facts and purpose of the refund claim. Since the refund authority failed to consider and apply the circular while rejecting the claim, the rejection order was set aside and the refund application was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. - HC
Rejection of IGST refund for exported goods solely on the ground that the exporter had not furnished bond/LUT prior to export under Rule 96A of the CGST Rules was held unsustainable because the governing circular clarifies that non-furnishing of LUT/bond is not an incurable or strictly mandatory defect and may be accepted ex post facto depending on the facts and purpose of the refund claim. Since the refund authority failed to consider and apply the circular while rejecting the claim, the rejection order was set aside and the refund application was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
