https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418596 The Bombay HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of a refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The respondent rejected the application solely because it was not filed electronically as per a November 2019 circular, despite electronic filing being mandatory from September 2019. Following the precedent in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the court held that Rule 97A permits manual filing of refund applications even when electronic filing is prescribed. The court ruled that the circular applies only to electronically filed applications and cannot override statutory provisions allowing manual filing, thereby quashing the rejection order. en-us Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Apr 2025 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418596 The Bombay HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of a refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The respondent rejected the application solely because it was not filed electronically as per a November 2019 circular, despite electronic filing being mandatory from September 2019. Following the precedent in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the court held that Rule 97A permits manual filing of refund applications even when electronic filing is prescribed. The court ruled that the circular applies only to electronically filed applications and cannot override statutory provisions allowing manual filing, thereby quashing the rejection order. Case-Laws GST Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418596