2024 (6) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Vardini Karthik for Mr. B.Sakthivel For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendran Raghavan, Sr. SC ORDER An order dated 28.12.2023 rejecting the petitioner's request for refund is challenged in this writ petition. Pursuant to an audit, observations were communicated to the petitioner. One of the observations pertained to the petitioner having wrongly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of CGST a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were assigned for rejecting the refund claim. In particular, by referring to sub-section (1) of Section 77 read with clause (d) of sub-section (8) of Section 54 of applicable GST enactments, learned counsel contends that this case falls within the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 77. On the second issue, she points out that the petitioner had set out details of the double payment in the reply ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of taxes so paid in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed." 5. Clause (d) of sub-section (8) of Section 54 expressly refers to refund of tax in pursuance of Section 77. In this statutory context, while considering the petitioner's claim, it was necessary for the respondent to respond to the submission and record reasons for concluding that the petitioner's clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is an offshoot of delayed payment of tax liability. As such it is found that there is no excess payment and not eligible to claim refund amount of Rs. 9,51,336/-.) 6. On examining the above extract, it appears that no reasons have been recorded for concluding that the claim does not fall within the ambit of sub-section (1) of Section 77. 7. Even as regards the second issue relating to excess pa....