TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Goods and Services Tax Division-1, OB-32, Rail Head Complex, Jammu-respondent No. 4 herein, whereby the petitioner-firm has been called upon to show cause as to why (i) the refund of Education Cess of Rs. 1,35,26,979 as Education Cess and Rs. 67,63,906/- as S&H Education Cess repaid by it, and (ii) refund of Rs. 83,24,783 on account of Education Cess and Rs. 41,62,569 on account of S&H Higher Education Cess kept pending should not be rejected. 2. The petitioner submitted a claim of Education Cess and S&H Cess for the period April 2008 to March 2009 and December 2010 till April 2016. The jurisdictional Commissionerate rejected the claim of the petitioner for the refund of aforesaid Cess. Feeling aggrieved, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that only in three cases, the Revenue has approached the Supreme Court for assailing the orders of refund passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. 4. On the dismissal of the appeals filed before this Court by the Revenue, the refunds as per the CESTAT orders were granted in favour of the petitioner, purportedly in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd (supra). The judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the said case was later declared per incuriam by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India and others, 2020 (3) SCC 492. The Supreme Court found the judgment rendered in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd.(supra) contrary to the law declared by a Larger Bench (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....involved and the submissions made at the Bar, disposed of the petition by providing that the impugned show cause notices shall remain dormant and shall not be given effect to till the litigation between the parties pending before the Supreme Court was finally disposed of. It is pertinent to mention here that these notices, for deposit of the refunded cess in view of the law laid down in Unicorn Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra), stood already complied with by the petitioner, who had reversed the refund of cess to the Revenue, though under protest. The judgment dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) vs. M/s Sarswati Agro Chemicals Ltd. (SLP No. 18051/2023) prompted the petitioner t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 03.08.2023), the refund of education cess/higher education cess which was released in favour of the assessees pursuant to the law laid down in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. could not be recovered on the strength of M/s Unicorn Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra). 9. Per contra, Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, learned counsel for the Revenue, would argue that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries Pvt. Ltd, which reiterated the position of law declared by the Supreme Court in Modi Rubber Ltd.(supra), the petitioner was never entitled to refund, particularly when the refund of cess pertains to the year prior to passing of the judgment in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd (supra). He would further argue that the petitioner cannot claim r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court to undo the judgment in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., which was subsequently overruled in M/s Unicorn Industries Pvt .Ltd, but the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Revenue also made a request to the Supreme Court to make a reference to a Larger Bench, but the same too was rejected by the Supreme Court on the ground that no such application was maintainable after the review petition filed in the case of M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. stood dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court that filing of a miscellaneous application seeking to undo the judgment of M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. was essentially a second application for seeking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the orders passed by CESTAT in the case of the petitioner are still sub judice. 14. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that, in compliance with the CESTAT orders, the amount of cess charged by the Revenue was at one point of time refunded to the petitioner. It was, however, asked to redeposit the same by issuing the notices in the year 2020 due to change of law in M/s Unicorn Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra). We are aware that three belated appeals are pending before the Supreme Court in which the CESTAT orders of refund based upon the judgment of SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. are still pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. We are also aware that the assessees similarly situated with the petitioner have been permitted to retain the....