Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTNo Statutory Bar U/s 54(1) Of CGST Act, 2017 Against Filing Second...

No Statutory Bar U/s 54(1) Of CGST Act, 2017 Against Filing Second Refund Application: Bombay HC

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Bombay High Court has quashed the rejection of a refund claim filed holding that there is no statutory bar under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 against filing a second refund application, particularly where the earlier claim omitted certain invoices due to inadvertence. The Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here
Nikhil Bhandari
Nikhil Bhandari
Nikhil Bhandari is a Chartered Accountant and a Indirect Tax professional with over 5 years of post-qualification experience in tax advisory, compliance management, and tax process optimization. Associated with SDU LLP since August 2015 spanning his articleship through to his current role as Manager Nikhil has uniquely navigated India’s transition from the legacy tax regime into the GST era.His expertise encompasses both strategic advisory and Indirect Tax litigation, where he represents clients in complex disputes across the manufacturing, service, and e-commerce sectors. By providing high-level counsel to corporate leadership, he ensures that tax positions are not only robust and compliant but also structured for long-term operational efficiency.Beyond his core practice, Nikhil is a proactive contributor to the GST ecosystem. He is dedicated to tracking and analyzing judicial precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, fostering greater clarity and ease of access to tax intelligence for the wider professional community.

Latest articles

Importer’s Consent To Higher Customs Value Does Not Bar Appeal; Enhancement Needs Supporting Evidence: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has held that an...

Consent to Higher Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Import Data Alone Can’t Justify Enhancement: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has held that an...

Settled Tax Exemptions Can’t Be Reopened In Remand Proceedings: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside an...

Rs. 2.16 Lakh Service Tax Demand Set Aside Over Threshold Exemption, Lack Of Proof Of Suppression: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a...

More like this

Importer’s Consent To Higher Customs Value Does Not Bar Appeal; Enhancement Needs Supporting Evidence: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has held that an...

Consent to Higher Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Import Data Alone Can’t Justify Enhancement: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has held that an...

Settled Tax Exemptions Can’t Be Reopened In Remand Proceedings: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside an...