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>Mandamus denied for service tax refund while show cause notice pending adjudication process</h1> <h3>ICICI Bank Limited Versus Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Finance New Delhi., Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai.</h3> ICICI Bank Limited Versus Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Finance New Delhi., Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai, ... Issues:1. Petition seeking a writ of mandamus for a refund of deposit made 'under protest' for Service Tax Liability on 'Interchange Fees.'2. Quashing of show cause notice seeking to recover service tax on interchange fees.3. Delayed adjudication of refund applications and show cause notice.4. Request for refund of Rs.333.08 crore and quashing of show cause notice.5. Arguments regarding delayed adjudication and refund applications.6. Court's observations on delayed adjudication affecting working capital requirements.7. Decision on quashing show cause notice and granting refund.8. Adjudication of show cause notice and refund applications within eight weeks.Analysis:The petitioner, a Bank, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents for a refund of Rs.333.08 crore deposited 'under protest' for Service Tax Liability on 'Interchange Fees' from April 2007 to June 2017. The petitioner also sought quashing of a show cause notice dated 11 May 2015 seeking to recover service tax on interchange fees and adjustment against the amount paid 'under protest.' The petitioner contended that delayed adjudication had rendered the show cause notice stale, citing a Supreme Court decision and a similar case before the Bombay High Court. The respondents had issued various notices and requests for submissions regarding the show cause notice and refund applications, impacting the petitioner's working capital requirements.The Court observed the respondents' practice of not adjudicating refund applications and show cause notices for years adversely affecting business entities' working capital requirements. The Court emphasized the importance of early adjudication to avoid interest payments from the State exchequer. Regarding the show cause notice dated 11 May 2015, the Court noted the petitioner's requests for adjudication and rejected the prayer for quashing due to the petitioner's repeated calls for adjudication until April 2023. The Court directed the respondents to adjudicate the show cause notice and refund applications within eight weeks, considering the petitioner's eligibility for any refund along with interest, if applicable.The Court declined to grant a refund directly through a writ of mandamus, emphasizing the need for authorities to examine the petitioner's refund claim following the law and on its merits. The Court distinguished the present case from a previous case where a direct refund was granted due to a clear determination of refund dues by the appellate authority. The Court highlighted that a mandamus to act in a specific manner is not typically issued unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court ordered the respondents to adjudicate the show cause notice and refund applications promptly to determine the petitioner's eligibility for a refund, if any, within the specified timeline.
TaxTMI 