TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel ORDER K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent dated July 19, 2018, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim. 2. The petitioner assessee sought refund of integrated tax to the tune of Rs. 75,67,642 based on certain reasons and grounds raised in the application for refund, one submitted through online on June 14, 2018 and another submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the petitioner, the present impugned order was passed reiterating the very same reason stated in the said deficiency memo. 3. Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has explained in detail as to how the deficiencies pointed out in the memo dated July 4, 2018 are not factually correct, the respondent is not justified in reiterating the very same re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng was not warranted under the present facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The petitioner seeks for refund of integrated tax paid already based on certain reasons and grounds, as set out in their application for refund. This court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the refund claim, as it is for the respondent to consider and decide. Upon conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explanation given by the petitioner, as to how such deficiencies pointed out by the respondent are either improper or not warranted. Therefore, this court is of the view that the respondent should consider the application already filed by the petitioner once again on merits based on the petitioner's reply dated July 13, 2018 and also after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. Accor....