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>Excess CGST Recovery Beyond 10% Pre-deposit Must Be Refunded With Interest Under Finance Act Provisions</h1> <h3>M/s. Munjoh Resorts Private Limited & Anr. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Haldia CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, & Ors.</h3> M/s. Munjoh Resorts Private Limited & Anr. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Haldia CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, & Ors. - TMI Issues:Petitioners' claim of refund inaction by CGST Authority, entitlement to refund, legality of recovery beyond 10% of demand, applicability of relevant statutory provisions and High Court decisions.Analysis:The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents, Commissioner of Central Tax, Haldia, CGST, in considering their refund claim. The petitioners contended that they are entitled to a refund as they have already filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority by making a mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the demand arising from the original adjudication order. The petitioners argued that any recovery beyond this 10% pre-deposit is not legally sustainable under the relevant statutory provisions of the CGST Act. They also relied on three decisions from different High Courts to support their contention.The learned Advocate for the respondents, CGST Authority, opposed the writ petition, arguing that for a refund of the excess amount beyond 10% of the demand, the petitioners should approach the Tribunal where the appeal is pending. The respondents contended that the decisions cited by the petitioners are distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. It was mentioned that the Commissioner had reduced the demand arising from the original order, but the respondent authority had still recovered an amount exceeding 10% of the reduced demand, which was deemed legally unsustainable under the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX.After considering the submissions of both parties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioners beyond 10% of the demand arising after the merger with the order of the Commissioner of Appeals. The respondents were instructed to refund the money within four weeks from the date of the order, along with statutory interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
