<?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>Refund denied for late ITC claim. Court says strict time limit not a must. No flaws in orders. Petition rejected.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80262</link>
    <description>Rejection of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to delay of 2 days beyond the 60-day statutory limit u/s 54(7) of the Act. Court held that the term &quot;shall&quot; in the section is directory, not mandatory, considering the availability of interest on delayed refunds u/s 56. Rigid adherence to the time limit would not serve the legislative intent. The impugned orders were deemed well-reasoned, with no procedural flaws or legal violations. Petitioner failed to show any merit for interference. High Court dismissed the application, finding no grounds for intervention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:11:18 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:11:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Refund denied for late ITC claim. Court says strict time limit not a must. No flaws in orders. Petition rejected.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80262</link>
      <description>Rejection of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to delay of 2 days beyond the 60-day statutory limit u/s 54(7) of the Act. Court held that the term &quot;shall&quot; in the section is directory, not mandatory, considering the availability of interest on delayed refunds u/s 56. Rigid adherence to the time limit would not serve the legislative intent. The impugned orders were deemed well-reasoned, with no procedural flaws or legal violations. Petitioner failed to show any merit for interference. High Court dismissed the application, finding no grounds for intervention.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:11:18 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>