Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Section 54(1) of the CGST Act does not bar a second refund application where a specific invoice or period was omitted inadvertently, provided the subsequent claim is within the two-year limitation period. The High Court held that a refund claim cannot be rejected on a purely technical ground merely because an earlier application covered a larger overlapping period. It further ruled that no analogous res judicata bar can be imported into refund proceedings in the absence of express statutory prohibition. The rejection was set aside, and the refund application was restored for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the taxpayer.
Section 54(1) of the CGST Act does not bar a second refund application where a specific invoice or period was omitted inadvertently, provided the subsequent claim is within the two-year limitation period. The High Court held that a refund claim cannot be rejected on a purely technical ground merely because an earlier application covered a larger overlapping period. It further ruled that no analogous res judicata bar can be imported into refund proceedings in the absence of express statutory prohibition. The rejection was set aside, and the refund application was restored for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the taxpayer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
