Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Refund rejection order not proper when required information for defending the claim made is not provided to the Appellant

Bimal jain
Refund Rejection Improper Without Sufficient Details for Defense, Violating Principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem' The Madras High Court ruled that a refund rejection order is improper if the necessary information for defending the claim is not provided to the applicant. In this case, a company manufacturing machines sought a refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure. The tax authorities issued a show-cause notice without detailing the claimed erroneous refund amount, making it difficult for the company to respond effectively. The court quashed the order, emphasizing the need for adequate information to be provided to ensure a fair opportunity for defense, adhering to the principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem.' (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case TVL. ORANGE SORTING MACHINES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COIMBATORE. DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-I ANNUR CIRCLE, COIMBATORE. - 2024 (6) TMI 1237 - MADRAS HIGH COURTquashed the impugned order as the Department failed to provide a breakup of the amount demanded, thereby holding that the refund rejection order is not proper when required information for defending the claim made is not provided to the Applicant.

Facts:

Tvl. Orange Sorting Machines (India) (P.) Ltd (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the manufacturing of machines and claimed refunds of accumulated Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) under inverted duty structure. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated September 22, 2023 (“the SCN”) was issued claiming Rs. 7,51,961 it was specified as an erroneous refund.  Subsequently, the Petitioner   in its reply filed, requested for a breakup of the amount so that they can reply notice appropriately.  The Respondent without providing a breakup of the claimed amount, issued order dated December 29, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) demanding payment of a total sum of Rs.3,84,922/- towards erroneous refund.

Issue:

Whether refund rejection order is proper when required information for defending the claim made is not provided to the Appellant?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in TVL. ORANGE SORTING MACHINES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COIMBATORE. DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-I ANNUR CIRCLE, COIMBATORE. - 2024 (6) TMI 1237 - MADRAS HIGH COURTheld as under

  • Noted that, unless SCN does not provide the particulars of the claimed amount, it would not be possible for the petitioner to reply in a meaningful manner to the SCN.
  • Opined that, the Impugned Order and Notice are bereft of particulars and need to be interfered with.
  • Held that, the Impugned Order is quashed and matter is remitted back for reconsideration.

Our comments:

The Hon’ble High Court affirmed the principle laid out legal maxim of 'Audi Alteram Partem” i.e. let the other party be heard. The chance of being heard does not only mean letting the other party speak but to also providing the relevant information for the other party to provide a meaningful defence.

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles