Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
