https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761132 The HC set aside refund rejection orders and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority. The petitioner's refund applications for excess tax payments across different assessment years were rejected as time-barred under Rule 29. The court held that while Rule 29 prescribes a 180-day limitation period, the proviso empowers authorities to admit late applications upon sufficient cause. The impugned orders failed to provide notice or opportunity for the petitioner to explain the delay. Since the Department did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to refunds or the assessment proceedings, the court allowed the petition by remand, permitting the assessee to explain causes of delay. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761132 The HC set aside refund rejection orders and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority. The petitioner's refund applications for excess tax payments across different assessment years were rejected as time-barred under Rule 29. The court held that while Rule 29 prescribes a 180-day limitation period, the proviso empowers authorities to admit late applications upon sufficient cause. The impugned orders failed to provide notice or opportunity for the petitioner to explain the delay. Since the Department did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to refunds or the assessment proceedings, the court allowed the petition by remand, permitting the assessee to explain causes of delay. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761132