TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Premature Tax Refund Challenge Rejected: Administrative Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Judicial Review of Service Tax Order</h1> HC dismissed writ petition challenging service tax order as premature. Petitioner sought tax refund but failed to exhaust alternative administrative ... Seeking to quash the order passed by the authority under Annexure-7, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to refund of amount paid towards service tax in excess within a stipulated time - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the authority under Annexure-7, which is appealable one and, as such, instead of preferring appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, which is not maintainable. So far as refund of Rs. 24,32,767/- is concerned, without making appropriate application before the appropriate forum for refund thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Thereby, the writ petition is premature one. Petition disposed off. The Orissa High Court, comprising Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman, addressed a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash an order dated 21.03.2023 and to direct the refund of Rs. 24,32,767/- paid in excess as service tax. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Jagamohan Pattnaik, argued that the adjustment of this amount towards GST and penalty, as noted in an audit report, was not legally permissible. The respondent's counsel, Mr. R. Chimanka, contended that the petitioner prematurely approached the Court without seeking remedy from the appropriate authority.The Court found that the order under challenge was appealable and that the petitioner had not pursued the appropriate appellate or refund application processes. Consequently, the Court deemed the writ petition premature and not maintainable. The Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to seek redress from the appropriate authority if permitted by law, but refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of such a course of action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
