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/2015-16/2853

Whether refund admissible if excise duty paid under wrong assessee code?

Case:-SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUSDEPARTMENT OF C. EX., MADURAI-II
 
Citation:- 2015 (321) E.L.T. 37 (Mad.)
 
Brief Facts:-This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 1-4-2015 issued by the respondent and consequential direction to the respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) towards the payments wrongly made by the petitioner in Assessee Code AABCS5320JXM001 or in the alternative to allow credit of the payment in favour of the petitioner.
 
Appellants Contention:-The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner company is a manufacturer of rubber products and assessee  and they are paying excise duty regularly. On 6-11-2014, while making payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards excise duty through e-payment, the petitioner company wrongly mentioned their assessee code as AABCS5320JXM001 instead of AABCS5320HXM001 resulting wrong entry of credit from the account of a different assessee viz., M/s. SURI IMPEX, Gurgoan instead of petitioner company. Immediately after coming to know about the wrong payment, on 7-11-2014, the petitioner company effected payment along with interest. Thereafter, the petitioner company sought refund of the payment made on 6-11-2014 by wrongly mentioning the assessee code. According to the petitioner, the said company is no longer in existence and the petitioner also obtained No Objection letter from the said company and submitted the same before the respondent. However, the respondent has issued the impugned notice asking the petitioner to explain and also fixed a date of personal hearing on 6-4-2015. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner has approached this Court.
 
Respondents Contentions:-The respondent has filed a detailed counter wherein at paragraph 5 it has been stated as follows :
“5.During the course of process of the petitioner’s refund application, a letter was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgoan, on 1-1-2015 to confirm the payments said to have been made by the petitioner under the wrong STC code belonging to M/s. Suri Impex. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgoan vide letter dated 5-1-2015 certified that M/s. Suri Impex have applied for surrender of registration and there are no dues pending against M/s. Suri Impex, Gurgoan at present. In the meantime, M/s. Suri Impex have also vide their letter dated 31-12-2014, have said that they have no objection in refunding Rs. 15 lakhs to the petitioners. The petitioner vide their letter dated 20-2-2015 submitted a letter of State Bank of India dated 20-2-2015 certifying that the payment has wrongly been made by the petitioner. The petitioner also furnished an indemnity bond undertaking to indemnify the loss of the Department on account of Department sanctioning refund of Rs. 15 lakhs to them.”
 
Reasoning of Judgement:-Admittedly, while making e-payment, the petitioner company has wrongly mentioned its assessee code as AABCS5320JXM001 instead of AABCS5320HXM001 wherein one letter viz., “J” has been wrongly mentioned instead of “H”. Therefore, the department has given credit of the said amount from the company which has the assessee code as AABCS5320JXM001 which is not in existence as of now. Apart from that, admittedly, the petitioner has made the payment twice. In view of the above said position, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the payment wrongly made on 6-11-2014. Therefore, the respondent is directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner company within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
Decision:-Petition allowed.

Comment:- The essence of the case is that if the assessee while making the e-payment wrongly mentioned its assessee code, then the refund of the tax wrongly paid is admissible to the assessee if the assessee had made payment in the correct assessee code also. Furthermore, no objection certificate was also obtained from the assessee in whose account the payment was wrongly made.

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