TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing two show cause notices which seek to deny refunds that have been already allowed and reached finality in judicial/quasi judicial proceedings. The said show cause notices seek to deny the refund claims on the ground that they are time barred. The show cause notices purported to treat the reminder letters sent to the authorities after petitioner had succeeded in judicial/quasi judicial proceedings and were entitled to a refund, as fresh refund. Respondents are treating the same as fresh refund claims and alleged that it is time barred. 3. Petitioner is engaged in the business of various types of back office services largely outside India alongwith certain group entities within India. Since petitioner exports majority of its servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We are informed that an appeal has been filed by the department against Tribunal's order dated 11th August 2015 for the period October 2006 to September 2007 and the said appeal is pending in this Court. Admittedly, no stay has been granted. As regards the order dated 5th January 2016 for the period September 2004 to June 2005, we are informed that no appeal has been filed in this Court. 7. As no refund was forthcoming from the department, petitioner made innumerable trips to make oral request and finally followed it up with letter dated 9th January 2020 seeking refund aggregating to Rs.6,61,46,240/-. Petitioner also claimed interest on the refund amount. Reminders were sent and also respondents were informed about circulars issued by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not applicable in cases where the refund claims have been filed within time and have been rejected and then such rejection has been allowed in appeal. 9. Petitioner had also filed 10 refund claims for 10 quarters, i.e., April 2014 to March 2017 claiming an aggregate sum of Rs. 13,90,26,197/-. All the 10 refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority. Against the said order, 10 appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). By an order dated 27th February 2018, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order with respect to 8 quarters partially allowing various refunds as set out in the said order. No appeal has been filed by the department against the said order. On 20th June 2018, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 11. Respondents have filed an affidavit in reply of one Santosh M. Sonawane, Assistant Commissioner (Refund) affirmed on 8th July 2022. Ms. Yadav made valiant effort to defend the action of respondent but could not get over the hurdle that there is no stay granted against the order passed by CESTAT with respect to the refund application for October 2006 to September 2007 and as regards refund application for September 2004 to June 2005 and the second set of 10 refund applications, respondent has not even filed an appeal challenging the refund orders passed by CESTAT/the Commissioner (Appeals). 12. This Court in Karanja Terminal & Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Writ Petition No.1397 OF 2020 dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals). We agree with petitioner's case that Explanation B (ec) of Section 11B is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. It is not applicable in cases where refund claims have been filed within time and having been rejected. This Explanation comes into play only when the tax demand is set aside giving rise to a refund. 14. In the circumstances, we hereby allow this petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses - (a), (b) and (c), which read as under : (a) that this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the papers pertaining to this matter and after going into the validity thereof to quash and set aside the impugned Show Causes dated 22.....