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>Taxpayers Can Claim Refunds Under 'Any Others' Category Despite Initial Classification, Legal Pathway Affirmed for Credit Recovery</h1> <h3>M/s. Engineers India Ltd., Represented by its Executive Director (HR & Legal), Mr. A. Bhowmik Versus The Assistant Commissioner (Central Tax), Chennai</h3> HC ruled that a refund claim cannot be rejected merely due to being filed under the 'Any Others' category. The Court set aside the order rejecting the ... Refund of amount paid upon wrongful reversal of the transitioned credit - rejection of refund merely on the ground that such refund claim does not fall within the specific categories enumerated in Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the application was filed under the category “Any Others”. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, a refund claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that such refund claim does not fall within the specific categories enumerated in Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019. It should also be noticed, in this regard, that sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act appears to be wide enough to embrace any claim for refund of tax or interest provided such claim is made within a period of two years reckoned from the relevant date. Since the order impugned was issued without providing adequate reasons for rejection of the refund claim, the said order calls for interference. The order impugned is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law by also taking into account the judgment of this Court in M/S. DMR CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, RASIPURAM, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. [2021 (4) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and any other precedents - Petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues involved: The rejection of a refund claim by the petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Issue 1: Transition of TDS credit under the CGST ActThe petitioner, engaged in providing services for large construction projects, claimed the transition of TDS credit as Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the CGST Act. The petitioner deposited a sum under protest towards the tax demand under the GST regime due to pending litigation on the eligibility of transitioning credit. The Court held in a previous case that petitioners were entitled to transition the TDS under the TNVAT Act under the CGST Act. The petitioner sought a refund of the amount paid upon wrongful reversal of the transitioned credit. The impugned order rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was filed under the wrong category, 'Any Others.' The petitioner contended that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely based on the category under which it was filed.Issue 2: Eligibility for refund under Section 54 of the CGST ActThe respondent argued that the refund claim does not fall within the scope of Section 54 of the CGST Act, which allows refunds only in specific cases such as unutilized ITC due to inverted duty structure or zero-rated exports. Referring to a Kerala High Court case, the respondent contended that the order of the Court was issued without considering the proviso to Section 140 of the CGST Act. The respondent suggested that the petitioner should challenge the reversal of the ITC or file a statutory appeal instead of seeking a refund.Issue 3: Rejection of refund claimThe impugned order rejected the refund claim on the basis that it was filed under the category 'Any Others.' The Court noted that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely for not falling within specific categories listed in a circular. Section 54 of the CGST Act allows for any claim for refund of tax or interest within a specified period. As the impugned order lacked adequate reasons for rejecting the refund claim, it was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to reconsider the application, taking into account relevant judgments within a specified timeframe.Separate Judgment:No separate judgment was delivered in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
