Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
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 
