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 Credit Refund Claim Rejected Due to Procedural Flaws, Petitioner Advised to Pursue Appellate Remedies Under Proper Channels</h1> <h3>M/s Bushrah Export House, Lko. Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Syed Asif Ali Versus Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Reveue New Delhi And Others</h3> HC addressed a tax credit refund dispute, finding procedural irregularities in the tax authority's handling of the petitioner's claim. The court directed ... Maintainability of the petition - appeal on different cause of action - Refund/Input Tax Credit for purchase of goods from suppliers which was utilized further in manufacturing and export of garments for the period September 2019 to January 2020 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed a refund of Rs. 1,86,40,537/- as ITC for purchases made by for different period. It is convincing that even though, a Special Appeal is pending before this Court in a case relating to the writ petition, but the cause of action in the said Special Appeal is different. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the orders impugned. Issues:1. Delay in issuance of refund/Input Tax Credit order.2. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition.3. Discrepancy in the claim for Input Tax Credit refund.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order and show cause notice related to the refund of Input Tax Credit for the period from September 2019 to January 2020. The petitioner argued that under section 54(7) of the Central GST Act, 2017, the refund order should have been issued within sixty days. However, a show cause notice was issued after nearly four years, followed by an order without any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that this violated statutory provisions. The court noted the delay and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned orders, emphasizing that the appellate authority should consider the appeal on its merits.2. The counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing section 107 which provides a statutory remedy for filing an appeal. The petitioner's counsel argued that a similar claim for Input Tax Credit refund was pending before the court in a different case. The court acknowledged the existence of a Special Appeal related to a previous writ petition but emphasized that the cause of action in the Special Appeal was different. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appellate authority.3. Another issue raised was the discrepancy in the claim for Input Tax Credit refund. The respondent's counsel highlighted that in a previous appeal, the period and amount of refund claimed were different from the current petition. The appellate authority had allowed a refund of Rs. 1,84,17,252 in the previous case, while the current petition sought a refund of Rs. 1,86,40,537 for a different period and purchases. The court noted this difference and instructed the petitioner to address the discrepancies through the appellate process, ensuring a thorough consideration of the appeal on its merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
