9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 909 - HC - GSTRefund of GST and penalty deposited under protest - Circular No. 2021007 dated 09.07.2020 - HELD THAT - Respondents submits that the respondent authority shall take appropriate steps to decide the claim of the petitioner for which the petitioner has already moved a representation. This writ petition is disposed of and it is expected from the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is filed before him.
Issues:
Petition seeking mandamus for refund of tax and penalty deposited under protest or directing the respondent to pass the penalty order. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking mandamus for the refund of tax and penalty amounting to ?4,24,620 deposited under protest, or in the alternative, mandamus directing the respondent to pass the penalty order. The petitioner argued that the penalty order was in violation of Circulars dated 09.07.2020 and 13.04.2018, which prescribe procedures for interception of conveyances, goods in movement, detention, release, and confiscation. The Circular emphasized the process to be followed in cases of interception of conveyances for inspection, detention, and release of goods and conveyances. Specifically, it outlined the steps to be taken when the owner of the goods or an authorized person makes payment of tax and penalty under the CGST Act. The petitioner claimed that respondent no. 2 failed to adhere to the Circular and did not address the refund claim. The learned counsel for the respondents assured that the respondent authority would take necessary steps to decide the petitioner's claim, as a representation had already been submitted by the petitioner. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed respondent no. 2 to promptly consider and decide the petitioner's claim, preferably within two weeks from the date the order copy is presented before him. This judgment highlights the importance of following prescribed procedures and ensuring timely resolution of claims in accordance with relevant Circulars and legal provisions.
|
