<?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>2025 (6) TMI 507 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772394</link>
    <description>SC upheld the maintainability of manual refund applications under CGST Rules, despite Rule 89&#039;s electronic filing mandate. The court ruled that Rule 97A explicitly permits manual filing, and rejecting applications solely on electronic filing grounds is legally unsustainable. The refund application was deemed timely due to Covid-19 related limitation extension. The respondents were directed to process the refund application within four weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2025 08:32:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 507 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772394</link>
      <description>SC upheld the maintainability of manual refund applications under CGST Rules, despite Rule 89&#039;s electronic filing mandate. The court ruled that Rule 97A explicitly permits manual filing, and rejecting applications solely on electronic filing grounds is legally unsustainable. The refund application was deemed timely due to Covid-19 related limitation extension. The respondents were directed to process the refund application within four weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>