Facts: Tulip Nilgiris Exports claimed a GST refund for unutilized ITC for multiple months while exporting processed tea. Although the June-18 claim was accepted, additional claims for May-18 and July-17 to Nov-17 were rejected due to an alleged limitation on refund claims for specific calendar months. The rejection was based on the belief that refund claims should be limited to specific calendar months, a stance contrary to statutory rules and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST.
Decision: The court confirmed the refund claims timeliness, filed within the two-year statutory limit from the date of export. The court rejected the notion that refund claims are restricted to specific months, deeming it contrary to legal provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. The court annulled the rejection, instructing the assessing authority to reassess the refund application. The reassessment should consider court observations and completed wihtin 2 months from the courts order.

Facts: Tulip Nilgiris Exports claimed a GST refund for unutilized ITC for multiple months while exporting processed tea. Although the June-18 claim was accepted, additional claims for May-18 and July-17 to Nov-17 were rejected due to an alleged limitation on refund claims for specific calendar months. The rejection was based on the belief that refund claims should be limited to specific calendar months, a stance contrary to statutory rules and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST.
Decision: The court confirmed the refund claims timeliness, filed within the two-year statutory limit from the date of export. The court rejected the notion that refund claims are restricted to specific months, deeming it contrary to legal provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. The court annulled the rejection, instructing the assessing authority to reassess the refund application. The reassessment should consider court observations and completed wihtin 2 months from the courts order.

Facts: Tulip Nilgiris Exports claimed a GST refund for unutilized ITC for multiple months while exporting processed tea. Although the June-18 claim was accepted, additional claims for May-18 and July-17 to Nov-17 were rejected due to an alleged limitation on refund claims for specific calendar months. The rejection was based on the belief that refund claims should be limited to specific calendar months, a stance contrary to statutory rules and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST.
Decision: The court confirmed the refund claims timeliness, filed within the two-year statutory limit from the date of export. The court rejected the notion that refund claims are restricted to specific months, deeming it contrary to legal provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. The court annulled the rejection, instructing the assessing authority to reassess the refund application. The reassessment should consider court observations and completed wihtin 2 months from the courts order.

Facts: Tulip Nilgiris Exports claimed a GST refund for unutilized ITC for multiple months while exporting processed tea. Although the June-18 claim was accepted, additional claims for May-18 and July-17 to Nov-17 were rejected due to an alleged limitation on refund claims for specific calendar months. The rejection was based on the belief that refund claims should be limited to specific calendar months, a stance contrary to statutory rules and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST.
Decision: The court confirmed the refund claims timeliness, filed within the two-year statutory limit from the date of export. The court rejected the notion that refund claims are restricted to specific months, deeming it contrary to legal provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. The court annulled the rejection, instructing the assessing authority to reassess the refund application. The reassessment should consider court observations and completed wihtin 2 months from the courts order.

Facts: Tulip Nilgiris Exports claimed a GST refund for unutilized ITC for multiple months while exporting processed tea. Although the June-18 claim was accepted, additional claims for May-18 and July-17 to Nov-17 were rejected due to an alleged limitation on refund claims for specific calendar months. The rejection was based on the belief that refund claims should be limited to specific calendar months, a stance contrary to statutory rules and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST.
Decision: The court confirmed the refund claims timeliness, filed within the two-year statutory limit from the date of export. The court rejected the notion that refund claims are restricted to specific months, deeming it contrary to legal provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. The court annulled the rejection, instructing the assessing authority to reassess the refund application. The reassessment should consider court observations and completed wihtin 2 months from the courts order.

Facts: Tulip Nilgiris Exports claimed a GST refund for unutilized ITC for multiple months while exporting processed tea. Although the June-18 claim was accepted, additional claims for May-18 and July-17 to Nov-17 were rejected due to an alleged limitation on refund claims for specific calendar months. The rejection was based on the belief that refund claims should be limited to specific calendar months, a stance contrary to statutory rules and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST.
Decision: The court confirmed the refund claims timeliness, filed within the two-year statutory limit from the date of export. The court rejected the notion that refund claims are restricted to specific months, deeming it contrary to legal provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. The court annulled the rejection, instructing the assessing authority to reassess the refund application. The reassessment should consider court observations and completed wihtin 2 months from the courts order.