Case Law Details
Case Name : Messers Filatex India Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Gujarat High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Messers Filatex India Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
The short point for our consideration as on date is whether the assertion on the part of the writ applicant that it is entitled to claim the refund in accordance with the formula as provided under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 89 of the Rules is correct? To put it in other words, whether it is Sub Rule (4B) of Rule 89 which should be made applicable for the purpose of determining the claim so far as the refund is concerned?
Mr. Dave
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
With all due regards to Hon’ble High Court, is really one-to-one corelation of input to output is contemplated under GST Law? Even otherwise, how it is applicable to input services?
What is the significance of sub-rules (4A) and (4B) when sub-rule (4) is in place? Does it mean that prior to insertion of (4A) and (4B), the refunds were incorrectly sanctioned where the benefits of the said notifications were availed? How can it be held that the option (c) in the common portal is meant for sub-rule (4), and not for (4A) or (4B)? Why should one apply in ‘any other’ category when category (c) is squarely applicable? Presuming that formula under (4) cannot be used for filing claim under (4A) or (4B), then why sub-rule (2) does not specify the documents for filing claims under these two sub-rules? These vital points have not been dealt with in the judgment, and hence, in all humility, the judgment suffers from infirmity.