Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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