9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 903 - HC - GSTRefund in terms of Section 142(3) read with Section 54 and Section 49(6) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 permitted - Low tax effect - maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT - Para 1.3 of instruction dated 17.08.2011 states that irrespective of the amount involved where constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge or where a notification/instruction/order or circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, it is permissible for the Department to pursue the appeal irrespective of low tax effect. In the instant case it is noticed that neither the constitutional validity of any provision of an Act or rule is under challenge nor any notification/instruction/order or circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires. The Tribunal has noticed the peculiar facts of the present case and specifically held in the facts of the present case , the appellant is entitled to refund in terms of Section 142(3) read with Section 54 and 49(6) of the Act. The appeal would be barred in view of the low tax effect in term of instruction dated 22.08.2019 - appeal is dismissed having low tax effect.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the applicability of the permissible limit for filing an appeal under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the interpretation of instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs regarding the withdrawal of appeals based on tax effect limits. Issue 1: Applicability of permissible limit for filing an appeal The appellant challenged an order allowing a refund under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, issued by the Custom Excise and Central Tax Tribunal. The respondent argued that the refund amount allowed was below the permissible limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for filing an appeal. Issue 2: Interpretation of instructions regarding withdrawal of appeals The appellant contended that the impugned order failed to consider the second proviso to Section 142(3) of the Act, which would still allow for the appeal to be maintained. Reference was made to instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs regarding the withdrawal of appeals based on tax effect limits, specifically mentioning cases where the constitutional validity of provisions or notifications is challenged. Judgment details: 1. The Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal for a refund below the permissible limit for filing an appeal, leading to the appellant challenging the order based on the second proviso to Section 142(3) of the Act. 2. Instructions from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs were cited, which set limits for withdrawal of appeals based on tax effect, with specific mention of cases challenging constitutional validity or legality of notifications. 3. The Court noted that in the present case, neither the constitutional validity of any provision nor the legality of any notification was challenged. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific facts of the case, allowing the refund under Section 142(3) read with Section 54 and 49(6) of the Act. As the tax effect was below the limit set by the 2019 notification, the appeal was dismissed.
|
