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>Tax Authority's IGST Refund Claim Quashed: Comprehensive Reassessment Ordered with Strict Three-Month Compliance Directive</h1> <h3>M/s. Clamp International Versus The Superintendent Of Customs (IGST Refund) Bengaluru, The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (IGST Refund) Bengaluru, The Commissioner Of Customs Bengaluru, The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru</h3> M/s. Clamp International Versus The Superintendent Of Customs (IGST Refund) Bengaluru, The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (IGST Refund) Bengaluru, The ... Issues:1. Quashing of a letter issued by the 1st Respondent.2. Seeking refund of IGST with interest.3. Applicability of circulars and statutory provisions.4. Higher duty drawback claim and its impact on the refund claim.5. Violation of terms and conditions of a notification.6. Consideration of petitioner's entitlement for refund of IGST.7. Remittal of the matter for fresh reconsideration.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash a letter issued by the 1st Respondent and a direction for refund of IGST. The petitioner argued that the impugned letter did not consider their specific claim for refund and was contrary to relevant circulars. The petitioner relied on statutory provisions, circulars, and judgments to support their claim.2. The respondents contended that the petitioner's initial claim for a higher duty drawback, later reversed, affected the refund claim. They also alleged a violation of notification terms by the petitioner. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the refund claim should be rejected.3. The court noted that the petitioner's entitlement for IGST refund was not adequately considered by the respondents. The court referred to the circular dated 09.10.2018 and notification dated 31.10.2016, along with judgments cited by the petitioner. Without delving into the merits of the contentions, the court set aside the impugned letter and remitted the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration.4. In the final order, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned letter, and directed the concerned respondent to reconsider the matter within three months, considering all relevant materials and judgments cited by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional documents if needed.This detailed analysis highlights the key issues raised in the petition, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's evaluation of the contentions, and the final order issued by the court for reconsideration of the matter.
TaxTMI 