https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765806 The HC allowed the writ, quashing the respondents' rejection of an application for refund of statutory pre-deposit as time-barred. The court held the word "may" in Section 54 is directory, not mandating forfeiture, and that refund of a pre-deposit is a vested right once an appeal succeeds. Interpreting Section 54 as mandatory would conflict with limitation principles and bar civil remedies, which the HC found impermissible. The Deficiency Memo rejecting the refund was set aside and the refund claim was restored. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765806 The HC allowed the writ, quashing the respondents' rejection of an application for refund of statutory pre-deposit as time-barred. The court held the word "may" in Section 54 is directory, not mandating forfeiture, and that refund of a pre-deposit is a vested right once an appeal succeeds. Interpreting Section 54 as mandatory would conflict with limitation principles and bar civil remedies, which the HC found impermissible. The Deficiency Memo rejecting the refund was set aside and the refund claim was restored. Case-Laws GST Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765806