Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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