^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

NIZAMUDDIN

Pet. Counsel

Bharat Raichandani

Swapna Das

Res. Counsel

Debasish Chowdhury

Prithu Dudhoria

Petitioner / Applicant	KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Sep 13, 2023
Order No.	WPA 19783 of 2023
Citation	2023(9) TAXREPLY 8938
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21st February, 2022, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund in question, passed on the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority on 26th March, 2021 with specific direction upon the Adjudicating Authority to consider the petitioner’s application and pass a speaking order. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 21st February, 2022, it appears that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order on remand by the higher authority by clearly defying and in violation of the order of the higher Appellate Authority which was binding upon the Adjudicating Authority being a subordinate to the Appellate Authority, by recording that the order of the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law and he could not comply the order of the Appellate Authority and rejected the petitioner’s claim of refund. S....