Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
M/S PRATIBHA PRINTING PRESS TH. RAJESH KUMAR SETH – Appellant
Versus
UT OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The grievance of the petitioner-firm as projected in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that it made supply of printing material including stationery, leaflets etc to respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the allotment order bearing No. DAA/15/154 dated 15.04.2015 but respondent No. 3 has wrongfully deducted an amount of Rs. 4,13,464/- at the rate of 12.6%, which the firm was not liable to pay as the contract was one for the supply and not for execution of works. The petitioner-firm has, accordingly, sought a direction upon respondent No. 3 to refund the amount to the tune of Rs. 4,13,464/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum due to it.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments, inter alia, invited the attention of this Court towards the communication dated 01.10.2019 addressed by the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes (Adm. and Enforcement), Jammu to the Joint Registrar (Finance), University of Jammu and on the basis of said communication, contended that the petitioner-firm was not liable to pay the General Sales Tax for the reasons that the contract allotted to the petitioner-firm was one for supply and not for e
The court directed the consideration of a refund for wrongful General Sales Tax deductions based on the nature of the supply contract, emphasizing legal compliance in tax matters.
The right to refund tax paid under an unconstitutional provision requires proof of non-passing of tax burden to consumers and timely action upon knowledge of legal changes.
Tax paid under a mistake of law is refundable under S.72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner is entitled to an IGST refund for zero-rated supply exports under the relevant provisions of the IGST Act and CGST Act, despite a....
The court established that refund applications submitted within three years are valid despite initial deficiencies, emphasizing timely processing by tax authorities.
If any amount is collected as tax, without authority of law, refund of the same can be claimed by filing a suit. It is also settled proposition of law that such refund can also be directed in a writ ....
Taxation - Value added tax – Refund of - Assessee had every right to dispute such collection and such dispute when raised in return filed, had to be adjudicated by Superintendent - Amount so collecte....
The court reaffirmed that construction services qualify as works contracts under the law, entitling the petitioner to refund despite previous rejections based on misinterpretation of statutory notifi....
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
