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 orders second respondent to address petitioner's representation promptly and grant a hearing before decision.</h1> <h3>M/s. Tagros Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Exports-Air), The Joint Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Goods and Service Tax Network</h3> The Court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the second respondent to promptly address the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2019. The ... Refund of tax already paid - whether second respondent is a competent person to decide their claim? - HELD THAT:- This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the respective parties, since admittedly the request made by the petitioner before the second respondent dated 11.04.2019 in writing, has not been disposed of by the second respondent. Needless to say that it is for the second respondent to pass orders on the said request made on merits and in accordance with law so as to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum, if such order is passed adverse to the interest of the petitioner. Petition disposed off. Issues:Seeking Mandamus for refund of tax paid on a shipping bill.Analysis:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to refund an amount claimed on a specific shipping bill. The petitioner sought a refund of tax already paid concerning Shipping Bill No.8983981 dated 28.09.2017. The petitioner claimed that as per Circular No.40/2018-Customs, the second respondent is competent to decide their claim. They made a written request on 11.04.2019, which has not been addressed yet.The counsel for the Revenue argued that the second respondent is not in a position to decide the request, as it falls under the jurisdiction of DG-Systems. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, acknowledging that the petitioner's request dated 11.04.2019 remains unresolved by the second respondent. The Court emphasized that the second respondent must adjudicate on the request in accordance with the law, enabling the petitioner to seek further remedies if necessary.Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the second respondent to address the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2019 promptly. The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the receipt of the court's order, ensuring the petitioner is granted a hearing before any decision is made. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
