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>Export Tax Refund Claim: Petitioner Must Submit Representation, Respondent to Evaluate IGST Refund Within Specified Timeframe</h1> <h3>Prakash Impex, Rep by its Partner, S. Pavan Kumar Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports-Sea), The Superintendent of CGST, Chennai</h3> Prakash Impex, Rep by its Partner, S. Pavan Kumar Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports-Sea), The Superintendent of CGST, Chennai - TMI In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, the petitioner sought a directive for the 2nd respondent to consider a representation dated 03.10.2022. The petitioner requested the sanction of a refund amounting to Rs. 18,78,728 for IGST paid on the export of goods, along with applicable interest as per Section 56 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner claimed entitlement to this refund due to the payment made during the export process, but the 2nd respondent had yet to act on the representation.The respondent's counsel, Ms. Revathi Manivannan, acknowledged the delay and requested the court to direct the petitioner to provide a copy of the representation to the 2nd respondent for further action. The court, after considering submissions from both parties, directed the petitioner to furnish the representation copy to the 2nd respondent within two weeks. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent is instructed to evaluate and resolve the representation based on its merits and legal provisions within four weeks of receipt. The writ petition was disposed of with these instructions, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 