https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456155 The HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders that rejected the refund applications based on time limitation. The Court emphasized that the rejection was incorrect, given the legal position established by the Commissioner (Appeals), supported by the Delhi HC and a relevant Circular. The matter was remanded to the respondent for reconsideration on merits, with a directive to resolve the issue within eight weeks, after hearing the petitioner. No costs were imposed. The judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to established legal positions regarding time limits for filing refund applications, highlighting the need for statutory clarity in such matters. en-us Mon, 12 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2024 19:57:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456155 The HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders that rejected the refund applications based on time limitation. The Court emphasized that the rejection was incorrect, given the legal position established by the Commissioner (Appeals), supported by the Delhi HC and a relevant Circular. The matter was remanded to the respondent for reconsideration on merits, with a directive to resolve the issue within eight weeks, after hearing the petitioner. No costs were imposed. The judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to established legal positions regarding time limits for filing refund applications, highlighting the need for statutory clarity in such matters. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 12 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456155