|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1435
Exemption from sales tax - prayer that an opportunity be granted to petitioner to file a reply - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the impugn orders shows that orders have been passed solely on the ground that reply has not been submitted by petitioner. Accordingly, an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice.
The impugn orders are set aside. Matter is remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication of the Show Cause Notice - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1434
Challenge to assessment order - SCN were merely uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated to the petitioner in any of the other modes specified in Section 169 of the applicable GST statutes - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record clearly indicate that an intimation and show cause notice preceded the assessment order. The records also disclose that personal hearings were offered to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the explanation of the petitioner that he was unaware of proceedings, in spite of being a registered person, is not wholly convincing. At the same time, it should be recognized that the petitioner was not heard and therefore did not have the opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. In these circumstances, solely with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand with in a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1433
Challenge to assessment order - personal hearing was not provided - violation of principle sof natural justice - HELD THAT:- On examining the show cause notice, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no personal hearing was offered is liable to be accepted. As per Section 75(4) of the applicable GST statutes, a personal hearing is mandatory either if requested for or if an order adverse to the registered person is proposed to be issued. Since this mandatory requirement was not complied with, the order calls for interference.
The impugned assessment order dated 01.09.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re- consideration by the assessing officer. The petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1432
Cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns - rejection of appeal on the ground of time limitation - respondent claims that the Statue prescribes specific limitation period of 90 days to file an appeal and the appeal filed by the petitioner is a time barred one - HELD THAT:- This Court in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that no useful purpose would be served keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime as such the assessee would still continue to his businesses and supply goods and services.
The petitioner in this case is doing hotel business. Most of the small scale entrepreneurs like carpenters, electricians, fabricators etc... are almost uneducated and they are not accustomed with handling of e-mails and other advance technologies. Though they are providing e-mail IDs at the time of Registration, the applications are prepared by some agents by creating an e-mail IDs, however, on reality most of the Traders are not accustomed with handling of e-mails - the uneducated traders can also respond to these notices to some extent, otherwise, these notices will be an empty formality and will not serve any purpose for which it has been issued.
The object of any Government is to promote the trade and not to curtail the same. The method, which is adopted by the Department as on today is like strangulating the neck of the small scale entrepreneurs. The cancellation of registration certainly amounts to a capital punishment so for as the traders are concerned. If they are not filing an appeal with in the statutory period, then his entire business comes to stand. He cannot do any business activities and without business, he cannot pay salaries to his employees, pay bills to the loans and ultimately, all his developments over a long period of time could be ruined in few months and it is also very difficult to regain the business in this competitive world.
Therefore, the Department of GST has to think of the consequences and relax the rules and also find the modalities of conveying the show cause notice by way of SMS and also in the regional languages. This court expects the Department of GST to take appropriate action by amending the relevant provisions considering the consequences on traders.
These writ petitions are disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1431
Power to condone delay - whether the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period? - HELD THAT:- The issue of whether the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in S.K. CHAKRABORTY & SONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Since provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Act of 1963, Section 5 of the Act of 1963 stands attracted.'
This Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2023 and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merit - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1430
Challenge to assessment orders - GST liability exemption under Schedule III of applicable GST statutes - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned assessment orders, it is noticeable that the reply submitted by the petitioner on several dates were referred to therein. All the documents submitted by the petitioner, such as purchase documents, Government approvals, copies of sale deeds to customers, documents relating to development fees paid to the Government and the statement relating to purchase of goods were taken into account.
Thus, it is evident that the assessing officer engaged with the evidence placed on record by the petitioner and entered findings after appraising such evidence. It cannot be said that a reasonable opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and that the order is a consequence of non application of mind. In these circumstances, no case is made out to warrant interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to carry these assessment orders in appeal before the appellate authority.
These writ petitions were filed in January 2024 after orders were issued on the rectification petitions on 05.01.2024. In these circumstances, if appeals are presented by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1429
Challenge to assessment order - arrears to tax and penalty - petitioner asserts that he was unaware of the proceedings until he received a phone calls from the respondent's office stating that he was in arrears of tax and penalty - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record disclose that the impugned assessment orders were issued on 29.09.2023. The three month period for filing an appeal expired on 28.12.2023. The further period of one month for condonation expired on or about 29.01.2024. These writ petitions were filed on 13.02.2024. If the time subsequent thereto is excluded, the actual period of delay beyond the condonable period is limited. In the overall facts and circumstances, these are appropriate cases to permit the petitioner to submit statutory appeals subject to fulfilment of pre-deposit requirements in that regard.
These writ petitions are disposed of by permitting the petitioner to present statutory appeals before the appellate authority provided such appeals are presented with in a maximum period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If statutory appeals are presented with in the time frame specified above, the appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1428
Challenge to assessment orders - levy of GST on reverse charge basis on seigniorage fees - levy of GST on forward charge basis based on sales turnover - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Insofar as the assessment orders deal with seigniorage charges, the directions issued in paragraph 9 of the Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam, in W.P.No.30974 of 2022 [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] squarely apply.
However, with regard to the imposition of GST on forward charge basis on turnover, the impugned assessment orders record the objections of the petitioner. The objection, in each case, is based on the declared taxable turnover of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that taxes were paid on the basis of the declared taxable turnover and that, therefore, the impugned assessment orders were issued mechanically without application of mind.
On examining the impugned assessment orders, especially the extraction of the petitioner's objections with regard thereto, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be accepted. As a consequence, on this aspect, the impugned assessment orders call for interference.
The assessment orders impugned herein are quashed only insofar as such orders deal with the imposition of GST on forward charge basis on the turnover. Consequently, these matters are remanded for re-consideration on such aspect - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1427
Levy of GST on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the respective petitioner to the Government - applicability of N/N. 13/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) - HELD THAT:- Relaince placed for consideration the Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is A. Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to either the issue of seigniorage fee or mining lease. Consequently, in this case, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1426
Dismissal of petition, relegating the appellant to the statutory appellate remedy - availment of excess input tax credit and utilizing the same for output tax - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent passed Ext.P9 assessment order under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act. The appellant filed Ext.P10 application for rectification of the said order on the ground that there are apparent errors in the said order. The 1st respondent dismissed Ext.P10 application as per Ext.P13 order. The challenge on Exts.P9 and P13 is on merits. The impugned orders were passed after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant for a hearing.
It is settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated by this court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to the statutory appellate remedy.
There are no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1425
Challenge to assessment orders - alleged discrepancies in the returns filed by the petitioner - petitioner was not provided sufficient time to respond to the show cause notices and that no personal hearing was offered - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record clearly indicate that the show cause notice was issued on 20.09.2023 and the impugned assessment orders on 28.09.2023. The time provided to the petitioner appears to be inadequate. In addition, the summary of the show cause notice does not provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which is not in consonance with the statutory mandate. Nevertheless, it also appears that the petitioner did not respond either to the notice in Form GST ASMT-10 or the intimation preceding the show cause notices. In those circumstances, the remand should be subject to terms.
The assessment orders impugned herein are quashed and these matters are remanded for reconsideration subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of each assessment year as agreed to - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1424
Cancellation of registration before SCN issued - no appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior - petitioner did not availed Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023 by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were cancelled, were permitted to restore their registration, on payment of all dues, between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner being not a registered dealer, there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. It is also a fact that the petitioner has neither availed of the appellate remedy nor the Amnesty Scheme which was made applicable. Petitioner also does not in the memorandum of writ petition controvert the allegation in the show cause notice that no returns were filed for the prescribed periods.
The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1423
Imposition of GST on reverse charge mechanism on seigniorage fee, lease charges and payments made to the District Mineral Fund (DMF) - payment of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- As decided in recent judgment A.Venkatachalam [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the objections / representations from the write petitioners, the authority concerned shall proceed with the adjudication, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The orders of adjudication shall be kept in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides the issue as to the nature of royalty.
Thus, as it is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.
These petitions are liable to be disposed of on the same terms in so far as the impugned assessment orders pertain to the imposition of interest and penalty on seigniorage fee, lease charges and DMF payments. In respect of all other aspects, the impugned assessment orders are not interfered with.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1422
Classification of goods - appropriate Chapter Heading under which the product proposed to be manufactured - applicable rate of GST - timelines of filing appeal - HELD THAT:- The food product is either Table Margarine or Bakery & Industrial Margarine, if the fat content is not be less than 80 per cent mass/mass. The impugned product is indicated to have fat content of 22.94%. Thus, as per 'Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, the impugned product 'Cream' cannot be classified as Margarine under chapter heading 1517 10.
The Authority in its findings have found that the other ingredients, i.e. sugar and premix (emulsifiers, stabilizers, acidity regulators and preservatives) are not been found mentioned in the HSN explanatory notes in respect of preparations of vegetable oil in the nature of an emulsion of water-in-oil, though it may resemble like a regular cream and it can't be understood to be included in the proposed product to fall under chapter heading 1517. In this regard we find that the appellant has submitted that sugar contains only 1% and premix (emulsifiers, stabilizers, acidity regulators and preservatives) comprises 5.5% if the impugned product.
Then the proposed product 'Cream' is a preparation of vegetable fat more specifically covered under 1517 90 90, therefore classifying the same under residuary chapter heading 2106 is not warranted - Since the proposed product is preparation of vegetable oil and does not contain animal fat, therefore GST rate applicable on the proposed product shall be 5% in terms of S. No. 89 of Schedule I to Notification No. 1/2017 - IGST(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1421
Timeliness of the appeal filed by the Appellant - Levy of GST - rate of tax - work carried by the applicant is a Composite supply of work contract involving pre dominantly earth work provided to a Government Entity - applicability of Serial No. 3, Heading 9954 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 and as per Notification No. 31/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 13.10.2017 both under the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding State Tax notification under HGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It was observed that the Appellant vide letter dated 13.01.2021 informed the Members of the Authority of Advance Ruling that M/s. KBPL has mis-stated the facts in their application filed before the Authority of Advance Ruling as they tick marked against S. No. 17 (at point 'a') that the question raised in the application was not already pending in any proceedings in their case under only of the provisions of the Act, WHEREAS proceedings on the same issue had already been commenced by the Gurugram Zonal Unit of the DGGI on 06.03.2019 which later culminated into Show Cause Notice dated 09.10.2020. Thus 'KBPL' has suppressed the material facts from the Authority of Advance Ruling.
It is clear that M/s KBPL had mis-declared the facts before the Authority for Advance Ruling for obtaining the ruling; that the Appellant had filed the instant appeal before this authority (Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling); that thereafter informed the AAR about such mis-declaration of facts; that on being informed by the Appellant, the AAR had declared the Ruling to be VOID ab initio in terms of powers given under Section 104 of the Act. Since Ruling given has been held Void ab initio by the AAR, the appeal filed by the Appellant appears infructuous and merits to be dismissed.
The appeal filed by the Commissioner, CSGT, Rohtak is dismissed as Infructuous.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1420
Margin Scheme notified under Rule 32 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - selling the old used Iron Scrap, used Lead Acid Batteries, old used Aluminium utensils & other Aluminium Scrap, old used brass utensils and other scrap, used old steel utensils scrap, old used scrap of copper, used waste plastic bags & used plastic PET bottles etc to manufacturers - whether the goods when sold outside the state or when sold within the state of Rajasthan qualifies under the Margin Scheme?
Whether or not the goods other than second hand Motor vehicles as notified under the Notification No. 08/2018 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 are eligible for margin scheme or not? - HELD THAT:- The Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 has not been issued under Rule 32 (5) of CGST Rules, 2017. GST rate in case of sale of second hand goods will be the same as applicable on original products/new product except in case of second hand /used motor vehicles on which different GST rate are specifically notified by the Government vide Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018. The intention of Government to issue notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 is not to limit Motor Vehicles as second hand goods to cover under margin scheme rather to give separate rate on sale of such second hand motor vehicles. Thus, we hold that the benefit of margin scheme is not limited to second hand Motor vehicles only but it is available to all other goods as well subject to condition that subject goods qualify as second hand goods.
Distinction between second-hand goods and scrap - HELD THAT:- It is a settled principle of jurisprudence that when the words of a statute are unambiguous and only one reasonable meaning can be given to it, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning. Such words have to be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense. It is evident from the above that the key difference lies in the usability of the items; scrap requires processing to be useful again, whereas second hand goods are ready for immediate use by a new owner. Additionally, the value of scrap is generally determined by the material’s potential for recycling and reuse, while the value of second hand goods is influenced by their condition, brand, and demand in the used goods market.
The reference to second hand goods in the margin money scheme is to such goods whose pre & post sale/disposal usage remains the same. For instance a second hand car shall be used in the same way as a new car. Used jewellery shall be worn the same way as new jewellery. Thus mere change of ownership is not sufficient to bring the term them as second hand goods & under the purview of Rule 32 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. There is one more requirement i.e. continuity of usage. The judgement & references relied upon the appellant conform to the above test. However, the items which are subject matter of the Ruling do not qualify the test.
The items in question fall within the realm of scrap not second hand goods, rendering them ineligible to operate under the margin scheme as per Rule 32 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, in so far as the goods are considered scrap.
Whether they are eligible for benefit of Margin Scheme for intra state supply or inter-state supply of goods? - HELD THAT:- The Margin Scheme under the CGST Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 32 (5), is designed to prevent double taxation on the supply of second-hand goods. It allows the GST to be levied only on the margin, which is the difference between the selling price and the purchase price of the goods. However, for goods to qualify under this scheme, they must be second-hand, used, or have undergone minor processing that does not change their nature. Additionally, the input tax credit should not have been claimed on these goods. Since the appellant’s goods do not meet the criteria of second-hand goods, they are not eligible for the benefits of the Margin Scheme for either intra-state or inter-state supply of goods. This interpretation is congruent with the provisions and the intent of the GST framework to facilitate a fair taxation process while avoiding undue tax burdens on the circulation of second-hand goods.
Snce the appellant is not eligible to operate under margin scheme in term of Rule 32 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 with corresponding provisions of SGST Rules, 2017 as the goods are not qualified as second hand goods, thus the benefit is neither available for intra state supply of goods nor inter-state supply of goods.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1419
Maintainability of Application - want of deposition of requisite fee as mandated under the GST law - Levy of tax on the monthly amount being deposited by occupier in the registry of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and which is thereafter released into the account of the applicant from the official bank account of the Punjab & Haryana High Court - HELD THAT:- The Appellant was mandated to deposit a total of Rs. 20,000/- as fee (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a mandatory statutory precondition for filing appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, it is found that vide challan No. 23040600189701 dated 21.04.2023, the Appellant has paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- as HGST), which is not the required fee. Since the appeal filed by the Appellant is incomplete for want of deposition of requisite fee, the Authority is of the view that the appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the Act.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1418
Rate of GST for hydrated lime/slaked lime - Advance Ruling - classification and HSN Code for supply of slaked / hydrated lime manufactured by the applicant containing less than 98% of the Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hydroxide - determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both - What should be the classification and HSN Code for supply of slaked / hydrated lime manufactured by the applicant containing less than 98% of the Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hydroxide?
Classification and HSN Code - HELD THAT:- The All India Lime Manufacturers Association (AILMA) which is apex body for lime manufacturers and suppliers in India having registration number 63735 and CIN IJ91900RJ2019NPL063735 located at Jodhpur sought clarification from Honorable Commissioner (GST) of both center (CGST) and Rajasthan state (SGST) in which the department vide clarification letter dated 06.03.2020 & 16.02.2022 has clarified that Hydrated lime/Slaked Lime and Quick Lime with purity less than 98% falls under HSN heading 2522.
Thus the goods in question fall under the HSN 2522 and accordingly the rate of tax applicable on the same in accordance with rate notification no. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) shall be 5%.
Classification and HSN Code for supply of slaked / hydrated lime manufactured by the applicant containing less than 98% of the Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hydroxide - The laboratory analysis reports furnished by the applicant reveals that the calcium hydroxide/oxide composition in the said goods are less than 98% and impurities are also available in such goods.
Applying the above, to the case at hand, we find that the goods to be supplied is slaked lime and hydrated lime of purity less than approximately 98% merit classifiable under CTH 2522 20 00.
We hold that slaked/hydrated lime manufactured by the applicant containing less than approximately 98% of the calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide, are classifiable under CTH 2522 20 00 taxable at 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST as per entry Sl. No. 131 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 as amended.
RULING
Q. 1 What should be the classification and HSN Code for supply of slaked lime manufactured by the applicant containing less than 98% of the Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hydroxide?
Ans-1 The classification and HSN for supply of slaked lime manufactured by the applicant containing less than approximately 98% of the calcium oxide/hydroxide is classifiable under CTH 2522 20 00.
Q2. What shall be the rate of tax on the said product?
Ans-2 The rate of tax of the subject goods is at 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST as per entry S.No. 131 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 as amended.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1392
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioner, on account of illness of his daughter, was unable to file the requisite returns - no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A look at the provisions of Section 30 of GST Act, 2017 reveals that proviso to sub-section (2) provides that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration shall not be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard.
In the present case, no order has been passed by the respondents on the application seeking the revocation and in those circumstances, it would be required of the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an order on the pending application of the petitioner.
Petitioner would be free to file a fresh, detailed application if so advised. The requisite order would be passed within a period of three weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by petitioner with the competent authority/a representation is filed by the petitioner, whichever is earlier - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1391
Rejection of refund claim - lack of opportunity for a personal hearing as required by Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show causes issued to the Petitioner gave the Petitioner 15 days to respond. Accordingly, they did respond by 17 April 2024. Therefore, it is rather incomprehensible how a hearing was allegedly given on 8 April 2024. The Petitioner has denied that any hearing was ever given. The show cause notice had also stated that the date and time of the hearing would be intimated to the Petitioner. There is no clear evidence of such intimation. In any event, proviso to Rule 92 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, contemplates reasonable opportunity to be heard, implying that such hearing should be after the Petitioner files the reply within the time prescribed in the show cause notice.
The impugned refund rejection orders are in breach of the requirements of Rule 92 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the principles of natural justice and fair play.
The refund rejection orders dated 25 April 2024 are quashed and set aside - matter remanded to Respondent No.3 for fresh consideration of the Petitioner’s refund application dated 28 February 2024 - petition allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
