TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court Allows Correction of Registration Number on GAR-7 Challan Without Payment</h1> <h3>KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC COMPANY LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC COMPANY LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 282 (Bom.) Issues:1. Correction of registration number in GAR-7 Challan2. Treatment of deposited amount as duty payable3. Refusal to correct assessee's codeCorrection of Registration Number in GAR-7 Challan:The petitioners sought a writ to correct the registration number in a challan from AAACK2479CXM002 to AAACK2479CXM003. The factories were registered under the Central Excise Act, and the petitioners had mistakenly mentioned the wrong registration number in their filings. Despite paying the duty in full, they were asked to seek a refund under the correct code. The court noted the innocuous nature of the request and granted the writ, allowing the correction without the need for payment and refund, within four weeks.Treatment of Deposited Amount as Duty Payable:The petitioners requested that the amount deposited be treated as duty payable by the factory for goods cleared in December 2010. The authorities refused, insisting on payment under the correct assessee code and seeking a refund. The court found this refusal erroneous and unjustifiable. It held that there was no reason to demand payment of the sum already entitled to as credit. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the corrections to be made without setting a precedent for future cases.Refusal to Correct Assessee's Code:The Commissioner, representing the respondents, stated that there was no legal provision empowering him to make the corrections without payment and refund. The court disagreed with this stance, deeming the refusal to correct the assessee's code and demand payment followed by a refund as baseless. It found no justification for such actions, especially when the correction could have been allowed without the need for payment and refund. The court allowed the writ petition, making the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners and ordering the corrections to be made within four weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
