Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

about 1 month ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—žš—¼š—¹š—øš—®š˜š—® š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—Ÿš—¶š—ŗš—¶š˜š—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—» š—£š—²š—暝—¶š—¼š—± š—³š—¼š—æ š——š—¶š—³š—³š—²š—暝—²š—»š˜š—¶š—®š—¹ š—„š—²š—³š˜‚š—»š—± š—–š—¹š—®š—¶š—ŗš˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—暝—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "The limitation period for filing subsequent differential refund claims is calculated from its date of filing, as per Section 11B of the Act."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s Om India Trading Company Private Limited š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Is the subsequent differential refund claim barred by the limitation period? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant, an exporter, filed a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. After receiving the sanctioned refund, they realized a shortfall and filed a subsequent refund claim for the differential amount.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that once an initial refund claim is sanctioned, subsequent differential claims cannot be considered a continuation of the original claim. As the second refund claim was filed beyond the limitation period under Section 11B of the Act, it was deemed time-barred. Appeal dismissed.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s Om India Trading Company Private Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼. 77143 of 2018 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 07 June 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling reaffirms that the limitation period for refund claims is strictly governed by Section 11B, regardless of earlier claims.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own