Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
