Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, P.DHANABAL
Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Gst and Central Excise – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. refund claims under mistake of law. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 2. substantial questions of law raised. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding limitations on claims. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. court's observations on judicial discipline and precedent. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final order restoring refund. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
P.Dhanabal J.
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred as against the final orders No.40789 / 2019 and 40790 / 2019 dated 13.05.2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Service Tax Appeal Nos.42538/2018 and 42539 /2018 respectively.
2. The short facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are as follows:-
The appellant is rendering software enable services in relation to pre-publication and exporting such services out of India. Based on export of services, the appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 and upon scrutiny of the claim, the ACCE Puducherry II Division rejected the claim of Rs.4,27,776/- for the period from April to June 2014 and Rs.6,33,962/- for the period from October to December 2014 vide order OIO No.201 of 2015 dated 02.02.2015 pertaining to service tax paid by the Director of the company in
Tax paid under a mistake of law must be refunded irrespective of limitation, as established in previous judicial precedents.
Refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit linked to output services must establish clear nexus; errors in computation and documentation shouldn't deny legitimate claims.
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
