Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/3001

Regarding refund of duty deposited during course of investigation

Case-HINDUSTAN GRANITES Versus A.D.G., DRI, ZONAL UNIT, BANGALORE
 
Citation-2015 (326) E.L.T. 106 (Kar.)

Brief Facts-In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores. According to the petitioner, the said amount of Rupees Two Crores was collected by the respondents under threat and without the authority of law.
It is not disputed by the learnedcounsel for the respondents that the respondents have received Rupees Two Crores from the petitioner in June, 2012. However he referred to Section 28(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Para 7 of the statement of objections filed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores.
However, even after lapse of two years, no demand for any duty is made against the petitioner and it is not the case of the respondents that, the petitioner, as on today, is due in any sum to the respondents, either by way of duty, interest or penalty.

Appelants Contention-In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores. According to the petitioner, the said amount of Rupees Two Crores was collected by the respondents under threat and without the authority of law.

Respondents Contention-They referred to Section 28(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Para 7 of the statement of objections filed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores. Para 7 of the statement of objections reads as follows:
“7. It is submitted that, during the course of investigation, the petitioner who is well aware of his acts of evasion to tax and probable tax liability to be payable after investigation, to reduce future interest and penalty, on his own ascertainment of such duty, voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- with the competent authority and informed the said fact of deposit in writing as contemplated under law vide Annexure-C. The contents of Annexure-C itself shows the deposit is made voluntarily to prove his bona fides and to avoid interest and penalty later.”
He also referred to the letter dated 6-6-2012 (Annexure-A) written by the petitioner which reads as follows :
“With reference to the ongoing investigation conducted against M/s. Hindustan Granites and M/s. Hindustan Marble and Granite, we have to state that to exhibit that we are a bona fide industrial unit doing business with an unblemished track record,have deposited a sum of Rs. 200 lakhs (Rupees Two Hundred lakhs only). This may please be treated as pre-deposit without prejudice to our rights to claim refund in the event the case would reach finality in our favour.”
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-As no demand is made for any amount against the petitioner, They find no justification for continued retention of the amount of Rupees Two Crores. It is unnecessary to examine the submission of the petitioner that Rupees Two Crores was collected under threat. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount of Rupees Two Crores is lying in deposit with Respondent No. 1. As there is no legal justification for continued retention of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2 crores, they direct Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores to the petitioner, expeditiously and in any event, within six weeks from today. At this stage, learned counsel on both sides submit that if the respondents issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within six weeks from today, there is no need for Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores and it shall be treated as deposit towards duty. Their submission is placed on record. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
 
Decision-Petition disposed of

Comment-The gist of the case is that according the deposit of duty during the course of investigation even if the show cause notice is not issued is liable to be refunded, if no amount is legally due from petitioner either as duty or penalty. There is no justification in retention of amount by Revenue. But in case a show cause notice is issued within six weeks, then amount need not be refunded, and it shall be treated as deposit towards duty. And, accordingly the writ petition is disposed off.
 
Prepared By-Neelam Jain
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com