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>Kerala HC Orders Consideration of Tax Refund Application under CGST Act, Emphasizes Fair Decision</h1> <h3>RAJU K. THOMAS Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WC), THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DY. COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST</h3> The Kerala High Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's application for a refund of tax deducted at source under the CGST Act if ... Refund of TDS - TDS were deducted by the 2nd respondent herein u/s 51 of CGST/SGST Act but the petitioner was not extended credit against the above, by the respondents herein inspite of repeated reminders - HELD THAT:- It is ordered in the interest of justice that in case the petitioner has filed requisite application for grant of refund before the 1st respondent and the same is pending consideration, then the said authority will take the said plea for consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative or counsel, if any, will take a considered decision thereon in accordance with law, without much delay preferable within a period of three weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Refund of tax deducted at source under Section 51 of the CGST Act.2. Grant of other incidental reliefs including costs of proceedings.Analysis:Issue 1: Refund of Tax Deducted at SourceThe petitioner, an assessee under the CGST/SGST Acts, filed a Writ Petition seeking a refund of the tax deducted at source by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner alleged that despite deductions made by the 2nd respondent, the credit was not extended to him, leading to the petitioner having to pay the tax from his own resources. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent for a refund, but no action was taken. The Court, after hearing both parties, directed that if the petitioner had submitted the requisite application for refund in the prescribed format, the 1st respondent should consider the plea after providing a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The Court emphasized that it had not delved into the merits of the dispute, leaving the decision to the 1st respondent to be made in accordance with the law.Issue 2: Grant of Incidental ReliefsIn addition to the main relief sought for the refund of tax deducted at source, the petitioner also prayed for other incidental reliefs, including the costs of the proceedings. The Court did not provide specific directions regarding these incidental reliefs in the judgment but made it clear that the decision on such reliefs would be at the discretion of the 1st respondent. The Court's focus remained on the primary issue of the refund of the tax amount and ensuring that the petitioner's application for refund was considered by the appropriate authority in a timely manner.In conclusion, the judgment of the Kerala High Court in this case primarily addressed the issue of refund of tax deducted at source under the CGST Act. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's application for refund if submitted in the prescribed format, emphasizing the need for a fair and timely decision. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the dispute but rather focused on procedural aspects and ensuring that the petitioner's rights under the tax laws were upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
