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>Refund Demand Stay: New Filing Allowed as Court Assesses Independent Claim; Judgment on Interest Pending.</h1> <h3>M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd Versus The Union Of India And Others</h3> The HC issued a notice to the respondent and stayed the order upholding the revenue demand, allowing the Adjudicating Authority to independently assess ... Demand upheld with penalty and interest being upheld - rejection of refund claim - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. List after four weeks. Issues:1. Impugning an order allowing an appeal but upholding revenue demand, penalty, and interest.2. Refund claim rejection despite export of goods and eligibility for refund.3. Remittance of the matter due to non-production of original documents.4. Denial of consequential benefits to the petitioner.5. Limitation on filing a fresh application and claiming interest.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 29.03.2024 that allowed their appeal but upheld the revenue demand, penalty, and interest. The petitioner contended that a part refund was granted subject to document production, but a subsequent order rejected the refund claim and upheld the revenue demand prematurely.2. The Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner's export of goods entitled them to a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellate Authority recognized the eligibility for refund based on the main input supply of coal. The matter was remitted due to the non-production of original documents, allowing the petitioner to submit the relevant paperwork.3. Despite the remittance, the petitioner was informed that they would not receive any consequential benefits. This decision meant that the revenue could pursue recovery without granting interest or other benefits, even if the petitioner succeeded in the Adjudicating Authority.4. Additionally, the Senior Counsel highlighted that the petitioner would be prohibited from submitting a fresh application due to system restrictions. Any subsequent application would result in the denial of interest for the period between the first and second applications.5. The Court issued notice to the respondent and directed the filing of a counter affidavit within four weeks. The operation of the order upholding the revenue demand was stayed, allowing the Adjudicating Authority to consider the refund claim independently. The petitioner was permitted to file a new refund application, with the Court reserving judgment on the claim for interest during the interim period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
