TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Judge affirms refund for wrongly generated invoice; upholds lower authority decision.</h1> The Judge upheld the Lower Appellate Authority's decision to grant a refund for a wrongly generated invoice, amounting to Rs. 26,411.23, as no evidence ... Refund - Excess duty paid - Penalty - Procedural non-compliance - Refund - Excess duty paid Issues:1. Refund against wrongly generated invoice.2. Violation of Rule 173G(2) by not cancelling the first invoice.3. Discrepancies between the second invoice and actual goods transported.Refund against wrongly generated invoice:The Respondents generated two invoices, with one claimed to be wrongly generated by the computer, and no goods were actually moved under it. The Lower Appellate Authority allowed a refund for this invoice amounting to Rs. 26,411.23. The Judge found that the refund was justified as no evidence was presented by the Department that the invoice was used for transporting another consignment. The Judge held that the Department could take penal action for the violation of Rule 173G(2) but affirmed the refund against the first invoice since extra duty was paid without any goods being cleared under it.Violation of Rule 173G(2) by not cancelling the first invoice:The Department contended that the Respondents violated Rule 173G(2) by not cancelling the first invoice and failing to inform the Jurisdictional Range Officer. The Judge acknowledged this violation and stated that the Department could take penal action as per the rules for this non-compliance. However, the Judge maintained that the refund against the first invoice should not be denied as no goods were transported under it, and the extra duty paid needed to be refunded.Discrepancies between the second invoice and actual goods transported:The Department highlighted discrepancies between the second invoice and the actual goods transported under it. The Judge noted that the Department was free to take necessary action regarding these discrepancies. While affirming the Lower Appellate Authority's decision to allow the refund against the first invoice, the Judge emphasized that the Department had the liberty to address any discrepancies related to the second invoice and take appropriate actions as required.In conclusion, the Judge rejected the Department's appeal at the admission stage based on the findings related to the refund against the wrongly generated first invoice and the Department's options to address the violations and discrepancies concerning the invoices and goods transported.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
