[Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, dated 30.07.2025, in M.A.T. no. 104 of 2024] The statutory time limit of 60 days as stipulated in Section 54(7) of the CGST Act is mandatory. Non-compliance with such time limit vitiates the refund rejection order. Therefore, the Department was directed to refund the entire claim with […]
GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs Aculife Health Care (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India (R/Special Civil Application No. 17800 of 2023), the Hon’ble Gujarat HC held that the limitation for filing a refund claim would be two years from the date of the circular. Against […]
[dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC), from W.P. no. 1463 of 2025] A ‘month’ does not refer to a period of thirty days, but refers to the actual period of a calendar month. Therefore when the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a […]
[dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, from Civil writ jurisdiction case no. 14957 of 2024] According to Section 107 of the CGST Act, an appeal should be filed within three months from the date on which the aggrieved decision or order is communicated. The date on which the order […]
[Order dated 01.08.2024, in Kehmka Aviation (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 1, from W.P.(C) No. 10591 of 2024] A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued, to which the petitioner responded. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the response by simply stating that the reply is not satisfactory. The Court is inundated with […]
Any aggrieved person (viz., taxable person) can appeal within 3 months from the date of communication of the decision / order [Ref: Section 107(1) of the CGST Act]. However, the time limit available for the GST Department to file an appeal is 6 months from the date of communication of the decision / order [Ref: […]
Background: The petitioner paid certain dues through web portal. However, due to failure of web portal system, receipt was not generated. Hence, it was forced to again pay the dues. It applied for refund of the dual payment. The statute (Section 19 of Lighthouse Act, 1927) provided that where Light Dues were paid more than […]