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 grants petitioner's application, advocates' accommodation; impugned recovery notice issued, pending further examination.</h1> <h3>M/s SWASTIK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH SH SANJEEV KUMAR PARTNER Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (DELHI WEST) & ANR.</h3> The court allowed the petitioner's application, subject to filing legible annexures before the next hearing. An advocate's accommodation request due to ... Recovery of Refund Claim - HELD THAT:- The impugned show-cause notice has been triggered on account of the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e., the Commissioner, Central Tax, Appeals-II, New Delhi. The Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the adjudicatory authority for carrying out fresh examination of the matter concerning the petitioner’s refund claim. A remand order of the kind, captured in the order of the Appellate Authority, cannot trigger a recovery at this stage - Mr Singla will return with instructions on the next date of hearing - List the matter on 02.06.2022. Issues:1. Legibility of annexures in the petitioner's filing.2. Accommodation request for a different advocate due to personal difficulty.3. Impugned notice for recovery of refunded amount.4. Effect of remand order by the Appellate Authority on recovery.Issue 1: Legibility of annexures in the petitioner's filingThe judgment allows the petitioner's application subject to filing legible copies of annexures three days before the next hearing, emphasizing the importance of clear documentation for effective court proceedings.Issue 2: Accommodation request for a different advocateAn advocate sought accommodation due to personal difficulty faced by the standing counsel assigned to the case. Another senior standing counsel was present in court for a different matter and was requested to assist the bench, ensuring that legal representation was maintained despite the challenges faced by the original counsel.Issue 3: Impugned notice for recovery of refunded amountThe impugned notice dated 03.03.2022 was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the refunded amount should not be recovered. This notice was a result of an order by the Appellate Authority, remanding the matter to the adjudicatory authority for a fresh examination of the petitioner's refund claim, indicating a potential liability for the petitioner.Issue 4: Effect of remand order on recoveryThe court expressed a prima facie view that a remand order like the one issued by the Appellate Authority should not trigger recovery at that stage, highlighting the need for further examination and clarification on the matter. The senior standing counsel was directed to return with instructions on the next hearing date, indicating a need for additional information before making a final decision.ConclusionThe judgment addresses various issues related to the petitioner's case, including the importance of clear documentation, legal representation accommodations, implications of impugned notices, and the impact of remand orders on recovery decisions. The court's detailed analysis and directions provide a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the considerations involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
