Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
