<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Court Remands Case for Re-Adjudication Due to Natural Justice Violation in Coal Cess Refund Dispute.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75521</link>
    <description>Violation of principles of natural justice - Seeking proportionate refund of cess i.e., cess paid on coal which was utilized in zero-rated supplies - The High Court noted that the fixing of the personal hearing date before the expiry of the 15-day period for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice deprived the petitioner of adequate time to respond effectively. The court highlighted the necessity of allowing parties sufficient time to prepare and present their case. - The rejection order of the refund claim was criticized for being a non-speaking order, as it failed to provide reasons for the rejection, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 92(3) of the Rules. - Matter restored back for re-adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:41:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Remands Case for Re-Adjudication Due to Natural Justice Violation in Coal Cess Refund Dispute.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75521</link>
      <description>Violation of principles of natural justice - Seeking proportionate refund of cess i.e., cess paid on coal which was utilized in zero-rated supplies - The High Court noted that the fixing of the personal hearing date before the expiry of the 15-day period for submitting a reply to the show-cause notice deprived the petitioner of adequate time to respond effectively. The court highlighted the necessity of allowing parties sufficient time to prepare and present their case. - The rejection order of the refund claim was criticized for being a non-speaking order, as it failed to provide reasons for the rejection, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 92(3) of the Rules. - Matter restored back for re-adjudication.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>