Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3981 to 4000 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules requires notice in Form GST RFD-08, a full fifteen days to reply in Form GST RFD-09, consideration of that reply, and an opportunity of hearing before refund rejection. The High Court held that curtailing the reply period to seven days, rejecting the claim the next day, and ignoring the petitioner's e-mail response breached the mandatory procedure. The rejection order was therefore unlawful and set aside. The proper officer was directed to issue fresh notice in conformity with Rule 92(3), consider the reply, grant a hearing, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules requires notice in Form GST RFD-08, a full fifteen days to reply in Form GST RFD-09, consideration of that reply, and an opportunity of hearing before refund rejection. The High Court held that curtailing the reply period to seven days, rejecting the claim the next day, and ignoring the petitioner's e-mail response breached the mandatory procedure. The rejection order was therefore unlawful and set aside. The proper officer was directed to issue fresh notice in conformity with Rule 92(3), consider the reply, grant a hearing, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
