Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
B. C. Power Controls Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of refund claim and allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural context of refund decision. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding application and allegations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's directive on refund application decision. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of writ petition. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
1. This petition is directed against alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not finalizing petitioner's claim for refund.
2. The petitioner runs a manufacturing unit for manufacture of electrical wires and allied products. It is involved in the business of export. The petitioner's case is that while exporting the goods out of India various export invoices, shipping bills and bills of lading were generated by shipping line, details of which have been given in paragraph 3(f) of the petition.
3. As Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act') read with Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the IGST Act') and Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules , 2017 (for short 'the CGST Rules') provides for treating the shipping bill as application for refund of IGS
A taxpayer is not required to make repeated applications for seeking a refund after succeeding in appellate proceedings, and the refund claim is required to be processed in accordance with the law.
The court affirmed the mandatory obligation under Section 56 of the GST Act for authorities to grant interest on delayed refunds, emphasizing that such interest is compensatory and should not be deni....
The court affirmed the right to interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for delays in tax refunds and established that such delays, due to administrative inaction, should not detrimentally affect t....
The rejection of refund applications cannot be solely based on suspicion without conclusive evidence. The petitioner is entitled to the refund of ITC on goods exported by it.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
The court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not obstruct legitimate claims for refunds under the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
