Refund of a statutory pre-deposit made for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) was held not to be governed by Section 54, because such deposit does not assume the character of tax and falls within "any other amount" under Rule 89. The Court, following State of Jharkhand v. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited, found that reliance on Section 54, a restrictive reading of Rule 89, and Section 56 to deny refund was misplaced, and the claim could not be rejected as time-barred or otherwise non-maintainable on that basis. It also held that withholding refund on the basis of a supposed pending SFIO investigation was unsustainable once it was shown that no investigation was pending.
Refund of a statutory pre-deposit made for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) was held not to be governed by Section 54, because such deposit does not assume the character of tax and falls within "any other amount" under Rule 89. The Court, following State of Jharkhand v. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited, found that reliance on Section 54, a restrictive reading of Rule 89, and Section 56 to deny refund was misplaced, and the claim could not be rejected as time-barred or otherwise non-maintainable on that basis. It also held that withholding refund on the basis of a supposed pending SFIO investigation was unsustainable once it was shown that no investigation was pending.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
