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>Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus Resolved with Tax Refund Undertaking</h1> <h3>M/s. MBH Enterprises Versus The Union of India</h3> The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari and mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the respondent ... Writ of Mandamus - adjustment of tax already paid under correct accounting code, or refund of the tax paid inadvertently by the petitioner forthwith, along with interest paid therein - Held that: - Mr. Jetly, on instructions from the Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise-respondent No.5 states that within one week from today, the necessary action will be taken and the amount would be refunded to the petitioner. The process in that behalf is already initiated - petition disposed off. Issues:Claim for writ of Certiorari and mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned letters/communications and seeking adjustment or refund of tax paid inadvertently.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash impugned letters/communications marked as Exhibit 'A1 to A2.' Additionally, the petitioner requested a writ of mandamus or any other writ under Article 226 to direct Respondent No. 4 & 5 to adjust the tax already paid under the correct accounting code or refund the tax paid inadvertently, along with interest. Upon issuance of notice to the respondents, Mr. Pradeep Jetly, representing the Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise-respondent No.5, accepted the notice and waived service.Subsequently, Mr. Jetly informed the Court that within one week from the date of the hearing, the necessary action would be taken to refund the amount to the petitioner. He assured that the process for the refund was already in progress. The Court acknowledged Mr. Jetly's statements as undertakings to the Court, accepting them in good faith. Consequently, the Court found that in light of the respondent's commitment to refund the amount, there was no further cause for action in the writ petition. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition, considering the matter resolved based on the assurances provided by Mr. Jetly on behalf of the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
