9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1769 - HC - GSTRefund of education cess as well as secondary and higher education cess collected from the petitioner as per N/N. 32/1999 read with 20/2007 - period from July, 2004 to January 2015 - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of Kamakhya Plastics Pvt. Ltd Vs- Union of India 2018 (8) TMI 1955 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT , this Court had directed the respondents to refund the education cess including secondary and higher education cess paid by the petitioner for the period during which those were realised. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are directed to refund the education cess including secondary and higher education cess collected from the petitioner during the said period to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Petitioner seeks refund of education cess and secondary & higher education cess; Contention regarding imposition of cess on excise duty exempted under industrial policy; Previous judgment for similar refund; Competent authority's decision to refund cess; Direction for refund by the court. Analysis: The petitioner, an industrial unit in Assam, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a refund of education cess and secondary & higher education cess collected from July 2004 to January 2015. The petitioner claimed exemption from central excise duty under the North-East Industrial Policy, 2007, and notification No. 20/2017 but was charged with education cess despite excise duty exemption. The petitioner argued that since education cess is imposed on excise duty, it should not be levied when excise duty itself is exempted under the industrial policy. Referring to a previous judgment in a similar case, the court directed the respondents to refund the education cess and secondary & higher education cess collected from the petitioner. The Additional Solicitor General of India informed the court that the Ministry of Finance decided to refund such cess regardless of court intervention. Consequently, the court ordered respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6 to refund the cess to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of following the issuance of the refund direction.
|
