Delayed judgment pronouncement alone does not invalidate Tribunal orders, while rectification cannot reopen evidence or negate confiscation-related pe...
Agricultural-land reinvestment qualifies when transfer consideration precedes replacement purchase, while unexamined claims may be reassessed on escap...
Bona fide public fixed-deposit explanations prevent concealment penalties where unexplained-credit additions lack independent evidence of undisclosed ...
Refund was rejected as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act by treating a later revised application (filed after a deficiency memo) as the relevant date for limitation. The Court held that limitation must be computed from the date of the initial refund application, and a subsequent revised filing pursuant to a deficiency memo cannot shift the limitation start point; the contrary approach was erroneous and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Refund was rejected as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act by treating a later revised application (filed after a deficiency memo) as the relevant date for limitation. The Court held that limitation must be computed from the date of the initial refund application, and a subsequent revised filing pursuant to a deficiency memo cannot shift the limitation start point; the contrary approach was erroneous and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4908 
