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 Penalty Cannot Be Double-Charged for Single Arecanut Transport; Refund Process Mandated Within Four Weeks</h1> <h3>Nitin Versus UOI And Ors.</h3> HC ruled that tax penalty cannot be collected twice for the same transportation of arecanuts. The court directed the petitioner to manually apply for a ... Refund of GST (amount paid twice) - tax paid in respect of arecanuts that were being transported without a valid E-Way Bill - HELD THAT:- The petitioner’s grievance arises on account of his inability to file an application for refund online. It is stated that there is no option available in the portal for the petitioner to apply for a refund online - Undisputedly, the tax penalty and fine quantified in GST MOV-10 dated 28.02.2022, cannot be collected twice over. The respondent authorities are, thus, required to refund the same. It is considered apposite to dispose of the petition by permitting the petitioner to make an application for refund manually to Respondent No. 3 - petition disposed off. Issues involved: The petitioner seeks a refund of Goods and Services Tax paid for transporting arecanuts without a valid E-Way Bill, claiming that the amount was paid twice over.Summary:The petitioner transported goods purchased by M/s Sharma Enterprise from Karnataka to Delhi without a valid E-Way Bill. The truck was intercepted in Gujarat, where the necessary papers were requested but the E-Way Bill was missing. Subsequently, a tax penalty and fine of Rs. 40,85,375 was imposed and paid by both the petitioner and the supplier, Rohit Sharma. The goods were released after payment and verification. The petitioner now seeks a refund as the tax amount was paid twice over. The petitioner faced challenges in filing an online refund application due to the unavailability of the option on the portal. The court acknowledged that the tax penalty and fine cannot be collected twice and directed the petitioner to apply for a refund manually to the concerned authority. Respondent's counsel suggested manual application due to the portal's limitations. The court disposed of the petition by allowing manual refund application and directed prompt processing within four weeks of application submission.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
