TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the cess collected by the market authorities under the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 post GST regime was constitutionally valid and within the framework of the CGST and AGST regimes; (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the cess already collected.
Issue (i): Whether the cess collected by the market authorities under the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 post GST regime was constitutionally valid and within the framework of the CGST and AGST regimes.
Analysis: The levy was examined in the light of the exemptions flowing from Notification No. 12/2017-Central Government (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. FTX.56/2017/25 dated 29.06.2017, and the earlier coordinate Bench ruling holding that, after those notifications came into force, the cess stood subsumed and the continued levy by the Board and Market Committees was not sustainable. The same reasoning was applied to the present facts.
Conclusion: The levy and collection of cess post GST regime were held to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the CGST and AGST framework.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the cess already collected.
Analysis: Refund was declined on the basis that the pleadings did not establish that the burden of cess had not been passed on to consumers, and the principles of restitution and unjust enrichment were treated as controlling. The financial condition of the respondent Board was also noted, and the Court declined to direct restitution of the collected amount.
Conclusion: No refund relief was granted.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of obtaining a declaration that the cess collection was unlawful, but failed on the consequential monetary relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a cess levy has become unsustainable after the applicable GST notifications, the levy is ultra vires, but refund will not be ordered unless the claimant establishes that the burden was not passed on and restitution is not barred by unjust enrichment.
TaxTMI 
