https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764139 For limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act and the corresponding SGST Act, a refund application refiled after defects are pointed out under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules is to be treated as relating back to the date of the original refund claim. Rule 90(3) requires a fresh application after deficiencies are cured, but it does not create a new filing date for computing limitation under Section 54. The corrected application therefore continues the original claim rather than restarting the limitation period, and rejection of the refund as time-barred by reference to the second application date was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764139 For limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act and the corresponding SGST Act, a refund application refiled after defects are pointed out under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules is to be treated as relating back to the date of the original refund claim. Rule 90(3) requires a fresh application after deficiencies are cured, but it does not create a new filing date for computing limitation under Section 54. The corrected application therefore continues the original claim rather than restarting the limitation period, and rejection of the refund as time-barred by reference to the second application date was unsustainable. Case-Laws GST Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764139