https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443164 The Delhi High Court considered whether the second proviso to Section 142(3) of the CGST Act governed a refund claim despite the alleged non-commencement of production or manufacturing activities. The Court noted the appellant's contention that such non-commencement would not defeat closure of the refund issue under that proviso. The matter was taken up for further consideration, notice was issued, and the operative direction in the impugned order requiring refund was stayed pending the next hearing. en-us Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443164 The Delhi High Court considered whether the second proviso to Section 142(3) of the CGST Act governed a refund claim despite the alleged non-commencement of production or manufacturing activities. The Court noted the appellant's contention that such non-commencement would not defeat closure of the refund issue under that proviso. The matter was taken up for further consideration, notice was issued, and the operative direction in the impugned order requiring refund was stayed pending the next hearing. Case-Laws GST Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443164