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 Refund Claim Reinstated: Input Tax Credit Application Restored After Documentation Error Rectification</h1> <h3>M/s. Shri Shyam Footwear Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Anr.</h3> M/s. Shri Shyam Footwear Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Anr. - 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 288 (Del.) Issues:1. Impugning orders dated 09.02.2022 and 17.06.2021 for non-release of unutilised Input Tax Credit.2. Defect in refund application due to incomplete/inappropriate information in Annexure-B.3. Rejection of refund application despite rectification of error.4. Failure to consider rectified information by the concerned authorities.5. Remand of the matter to Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the orders dated 09.02.2022 and 17.06.2021, seeking release of unutilised Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 4,28,400. The refund application filed by the petitioner was initially deemed defective due to incomplete/inappropriate information in Annexure-B. Despite rectifying the error and submitting a revised annexure, the application was rejected. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed on grounds of incomplete information in Annexure-B. The High Court observed that the rectified information was not considered by the authorities, leading to the unjust denial of the refund claim.The Court emphasized the authorities' duty to examine the information submitted by the petitioner and process the refund claim as per the law. It noted that penalizing the petitioner for a rectified inadvertent error was unjust. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration based on the petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh copy of the revised annexure for review.Furthermore, the Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to process the petitioner's refund application within four weeks. If there were any contemplations of rejecting the application, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to be heard. Ultimately, the petition was allowed on the mentioned terms, ensuring a fair review of the refund claim and rectified information provided by the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
