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 authority must provide reasoned order and hearing opportunity before rejecting CESS refund claims</h1> <h3>M/s Berlia Enterprises Versus State of West Bengal & Anr.</h3> M/s Berlia Enterprises Versus State of West Bengal & Anr. - TMI The High Court of Calcutta considered a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against the respondent authority's deficiency memo order dated 21.02.2024. The petitioner claimed a refund of CESS amount paid during the assessment year 2017-18, contending that the demand was erroneous. The respondent authority rejected the refund claim citing the expiry of the statutory time limit under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the 'said Act of 2017'). The petitioner argued that the time limits in Sections 39(9) and 54(1) should be construed as directory, not mandatory.The Court examined the provisions of Sections 39 and 54 of the said Act of 2017, emphasizing the statutory requirements for rectification of errors and refund claims. It noted the petitioner's contention that a clerical error led to the erroneous payment of CESS, justifying the refund claim. The Court highlighted the respondent's failure to upload the rejection order on the relevant portal, hindering the petitioner's right to appeal.Ultimately, the Court quashed the deficiency memo and directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's refund application, provide an opportunity for a hearing, issue a reasoned order, and upload it promptly. The Court clarified that its decision did not prejudge the refund application's merits and instructed the respondent authority to act independently in evaluating the application. The respondent authority was directed to comply with the order promptly, and the parties were granted certified copies of the order upon request.In conclusion, the Court's decision focused on procedural fairness, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for decisions and enabling parties to exercise their right to appeal. The judgment aimed to ensure that the petitioner's refund application was properly considered and addressed in accordance with the law, highlighting the significance of procedural regularity in administrative actions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
