2025 (1) TMI 921

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Thakar. For the Respondent: Adv. Himanshu Takke -A.G.P. a/w Adv. Manish Upadhye A.G.P. Nos. 1 & 2 (for State of Maharashtra). P. C. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges the impugned Order dated 27th May, 2021 rejecting the Refund Application filed by the Petitioner. This....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....into the consideration the notification dated 5/7/2022 issued by CBITC, the period for seeking refund sought for every transaction was within the two year period as stipulated in Section 54 (1) of the CGST Act. 5. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-state fairly stated that considering the above notification, the impugned Order can be set aside and the matter can be remanded back to th....