https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369397 A settlement application filed with the admitted payment could not be rejected when the authority failed to intimate any deficit within the prescribed time under Rule 3(5). The matter remained pending for years, and the eventual rejection was issued by a respondent who lacked jurisdiction over proceedings that had been initiated and were still pending before another respondent. On these facts, the rejection was procedurally unfair and beyond jurisdiction. The rejection order was set aside and the settlement matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Oct 2018 07:49:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369397 A settlement application filed with the admitted payment could not be rejected when the authority failed to intimate any deficit within the prescribed time under Rule 3(5). The matter remained pending for years, and the eventual rejection was issued by a respondent who lacked jurisdiction over proceedings that had been initiated and were still pending before another respondent. On these facts, the rejection was procedurally unfair and beyond jurisdiction. The rejection order was set aside and the settlement matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369397