Tax refund appeal upheld by Member, finding no justification to deny refund balance amount. Revenue's appeal rejected.

The Member (Judicial) upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to allow a refund of Rs.93,064, finding that the appellant had paid the amount under protest and deposited the full amount through a single TR-6 challan. The Member concluded that there was no justification to deny the refund of the balance amount and rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the lower authority had erred in disallowing part of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against refund order - Sanction of refund amount - Payment under protest - Timeliness of refund claim - Justification for denial of refund balance amount.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing a refund of Rs.93,064. The Revenue contended that the amount was not sanctioned by the Original Authority as it was not paid under protest, and the refund claim was not filed within one year from the relevant date. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant had intimated paying the amount under protest in a letter dated 12th August, 2005, and the entire amount was deposited through a single TR-6 challan dated 21.04.2004. The Commissioner concluded that there was no justification to bifurcate the amount and deny the refund of the balance amount. The Commissioner held that the lower authority failed to assimilate the facts on record, leading to the disallowance of the part refund claim of Rs.93,064.

Upon review, the Member (Judicial) agreed with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It was observed that the respondent had deposited the entire amount of Rs.3,50,523 through a single TR-6 challan, and the refund was only partly allowed. Therefore, there was no justification to deny the refund of the balance amount of Rs.93,064. The Member (Judicial) found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and consequently rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on 1.9.2009.

---