9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Petitioner : ADVS. DR. K. B. MUHAMED KUTTY (SR. ) SRI. K. M. FIROZ For The Respondent : SRI MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SR GP JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is before this Court seeking refund of the tax paid under protest. The petitioner admittedly was carrying on an industry, which was classified as one under the Khadi and Village Industries Board [K&VIB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and upheld the notifications. We do not see any bearing, on the facts of the aforesaid decision, with the present case. 2. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had paid the amounts in protest. The assessment orders were also not challenged after they were passed. Subsequently, the Government came out with notification at Ext.P11 granting retrospective exemption to all K&VI units from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion granted is a clear violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that Section 10 of the KGST Act gives the Government a limited power to grant exemption or deduction both retrospectively or prospectively, but however does not clothe the Government with power to make a provision so as to cause liability on a person for payment of tax, which is not sanctioned by la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the very same issue. Sri.Mohamed Kutty points out that the issue considered was in a very narrow compass as stated in the said judgment itself. We notice that, within the said narrow compass, is the issue as to whether the prohibition on refund of tax already paid; could be mandated in the notification granting retrospective exemption or reduction of rate of tax. Therein also, a similar no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
