<?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>Judicial Intervention Mandates Fresh Review of Tax Refund Claim, Ensuring Fair Hearing and Potential Full Credit</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88716</link>
    <description>HC set aside the appellate authority&#039;s order dated 11th December, 2023 rejecting the petitioner&#039;s refund application. The court remanded the matter for fresh hearing, directing the appellate authority to conduct a de novo review within three weeks, assign a different officer, and provide the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. If the refund is found valid, the entire amount must be credited to the petitioner&#039;s ledger with appropriate statutory interest. The court criticized the respondents&#039; procedural approach, highlighting the petitioner&#039;s registration restoration and subsequent refund claim&#039;s unjust rejection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2025 09:00:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 May 2025 09:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Judicial Intervention Mandates Fresh Review of Tax Refund Claim, Ensuring Fair Hearing and Potential Full Credit</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88716</link>
      <description>HC set aside the appellate authority&#039;s order dated 11th December, 2023 rejecting the petitioner&#039;s refund application. The court remanded the matter for fresh hearing, directing the appellate authority to conduct a de novo review within three weeks, assign a different officer, and provide the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. If the refund is found valid, the entire amount must be credited to the petitioner&#039;s ledger with appropriate statutory interest. The court criticized the respondents&#039; procedural approach, highlighting the petitioner&#039;s registration restoration and subsequent refund claim&#039;s unjust rejection.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2025 09:00:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>