2024 (1) TMI 1457 - HC - GST

Judicial Order Compels Timely Refund, Petitioners Confirm Compliance and Dispute Resolution Achieved Successfully

M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals-1) Chennai, The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Division I, Puducherry, The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Union of India.

HC addressed writ petitions ordering refund within 30 days. Standing counsel confirmed refund receipt. Petitioner's counsel acknowledged compliance. Court ... Refund of IGST - DTA unit supplying goods / services to SEZ - Inordinate delay in obtaining the endorsements - supply for authorized operation or not - Mismatch in the Statement-4, which cannot be relied on - POD was made not at the time of filing applications but at the time of filing reply/personal hearing - it was held in the earlier order by High Court that 'This Court is of the view that both the first and second respondent have committed a serious flaw in the decision making process and therefore, the impugned orders have to be held to be unsustainable.' HELD THAT:- These writ petitions were allowed and the second respondent was directed to issue refund to the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These matters are listed today “for compliance”. The Madras High Court, through Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, addressed multiple writ petitions by ordering on 06.11.2023 that the second respondent issue a refund to the petitioner within thirty days. Upon subsequent listing for compliance, the senior standing counsel submitted the petitioner's acknowledgment of receipt of the refund. The petitioner's counsel concurred that the refund was made per the Court's directive. Consequently, the Court held that 'the respondent has complied with the order' and closed the matters.