https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425201 The HC allowed the writ petition challenging GST refund rejection. The court found that the Refund Approval Committee lacked statutory authority to process refunds under Section 54 of CGST Act. Central tax refund was wrongfully denied based on incorrect assertion that petitioner had availed drawback, which was disproven by Commissioner of Customs evidence. State tax and cess refunds were improperly rejected without required notices. Additionally, authorities failed to comply with Rule 92(3) by not providing the mandatory 15-day reply period. The court quashed the rejection orders and directed proper processing of refund claims. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425201 The HC allowed the writ petition challenging GST refund rejection. The court found that the Refund Approval Committee lacked statutory authority to process refunds under Section 54 of CGST Act. Central tax refund was wrongfully denied based on incorrect assertion that petitioner had availed drawback, which was disproven by Commissioner of Customs evidence. State tax and cess refunds were improperly rejected without required notices. Additionally, authorities failed to comply with Rule 92(3) by not providing the mandatory 15-day reply period. The court quashed the rejection orders and directed proper processing of refund claims. Case-Laws GST Mon, 11 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425201