TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Fly Ash Brick Producers Win Partial Refund Victory, Court Mandates Transparent Calculation and Swift Resolution Under Rule 21</h1> <h3>M/s. Maa Sarala Fly Ash Bricks, Cuttack Versus Commissioner of CT & GST, Cuttack And Others</h3> HC of Orissa addressed a writ petition challenging refund calculation for fly ash brick production. Court issued notice to parties and directed interim ... Refund claim - according to petitioner, determination has been made erroneously and unreasonably and as such the revenue authorities have no expertise to determinate the proportion of cement used for production of fly ash brick, other than relying on the recommendation made by the DIC - HELD THAT:- Since this matter requires consideration, issue notice to the opposite parties. As an interim measure, the opposite parties are directed to refund the admitted amount as has been calculated to the tune of Rs. 1,71,824.20, without prejudice to the rights and contentions made in the writ petition, which is to be decided after giving opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. Issues involved: Determination of refund amount based on calculation for production of fly ash bricks using cement, reliance on different reports for calculation, expertise of revenue authorities in determining proportion of cement used.Summary:The High Court of Orissa heard a writ petition seeking to quash an appeal order related to the refund amount calculation for the production of fly ash bricks. The petitioner argued that the authorities based their determination on the use of 430 gms of cement for one brick, as per a report by the CSIR Institute of Minerals & Materials Technology, while the DIC provided a different audit report leading to a higher refund amount. The petitioner contended that the authorities should have considered the DIC report instead of solely relying on the CSIR report. The court issued notice to the opposite parties for further consideration and directed them to refund the admitted amount of Rs. 1,71,824.20 as an interim measure, pending a detailed hearing on the matter. The court emphasized the need for expeditious refund within four months from the date of communication of the impugned order, if feasible.
TaxTMI 
