Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
