https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408931 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the deficiency memo issued by the respondent. The court directed the respondent to process the petitioner's refund claim for IGST paid under the reverse charge mechanism. The court held that the tax collected was without legislative competence, entitling the petitioner to a refund. The court clarified that the refund claim fell under the Limitation Act, not the CGST Act. The court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order the refund, directing the respondent to process the refund claim with interest by a specified date. en-us Mon, 21 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Dec 2021 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408931 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the deficiency memo issued by the respondent. The court directed the respondent to process the petitioner's refund claim for IGST paid under the reverse charge mechanism. The court held that the tax collected was without legislative competence, entitling the petitioner to a refund. The court clarified that the refund claim fell under the Limitation Act, not the CGST Act. The court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order the refund, directing the respondent to process the refund claim with interest by a specified date. Case-Laws GST Mon, 21 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408931