https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445772 An amendment to the GST refund limitation provision was treated as prospective, so the change in the definition of "relevant date" did not bar the December 2017 refund claim, which was also found to be within time after exclusion of the Supreme Court-directed limitation period. For the January to March 2018 claims, Rule 97-A permitted manual filing where the portal would not accept refund applications, and the electronic filing defect justified processing the claims manually. The refund applications were therefore required to be entertained and processed under the applicable refund procedure. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445772 An amendment to the GST refund limitation provision was treated as prospective, so the change in the definition of "relevant date" did not bar the December 2017 refund claim, which was also found to be within time after exclusion of the Supreme Court-directed limitation period. For the January to March 2018 claims, Rule 97-A permitted manual filing where the portal would not accept refund applications, and the electronic filing defect justified processing the claims manually. The refund applications were therefore required to be entertained and processed under the applicable refund procedure. Case-Laws GST Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445772