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>Refund claim rejection overturned due to lack of proper consideration.</h1> <h3>M/s. Collabnet Software Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Chennai</h3> The High Court set aside the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred, finding that the impugned orders lacked proper application of mind and failed to ... Refund claim - time limitation - Held that: - The impugned orders have been passed without proper application of mind and without taking note of the fact that the petitioner has succeeded upto the Tribunal. In other words, the Revenue failed before the Commissioner of Appeals as well as the Tribunal - the impugned orders passed by the respondent are wholly unsustainable - petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to rejection of refund claim as time-barred.Analysis:The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred in Orders-in-Original dated 31.1.2017. The Original Authority had initially granted a portion of the refund sought and rejected the remaining portion in orders dated 28.12.2010. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Appeals, who allowed the appeals with consequential relief in a common order dated 14.3.2014. The Revenue then appealed to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 01.10.2015, upholding the refund order. The Revenue did not further appeal to the High Court, making the Tribunal's decision final. Subsequently, the petitioner's applications for refund dated 04.8.2016 were rejected as time-barred, which the petitioner contended was unsustainable given the success up to the Tribunal level. The impugned orders were deemed to lack proper application of mind and failed to consider the petitioner's success before the Tribunal, making them unsustainable.The High Court found that the impugned orders were passed without proper application of mind, especially considering the petitioner's success up to the Tribunal level. The Court noted that the Original Authority had previously deemed the refund applications filed in 2010 as within time. Therefore, the Court held that the respondent's rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondent to effect the refund as per the petitioner's applications within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
