9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner for filing the reply - Since Mr Satyakam is in difficulty today, list the matter on 14.07.2022, at the end of the Board. - W.P.(C) 12143/2018 & CM APPL. 47149/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate with Mr. Virag Tiwari and Mr. Ramashish, Advocates Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate, ASC for R-1 O R D E R [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. Mr Rajesh Jain, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, for the moment, presses the following reliefs, articulated in the prayer clause of the captioned writ petition: a) quash and set aside the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Description Central Tax State Tax UT Tax Integrated Tax Penalty Cess (i) Amount of refund/interest claimed 2916569 2916569 - - - 16781 (ii) Refund sanctioned on provisional basis (Order No. date) (if applicable) Nil 1571819 - - - Nil (iii) Refund amount inadmissible reason dropdown Multiple reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although facially ordered by an officer holding the rank of Assistant Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes, is founded on the decision of the Refund Approval Committee [in short RAC ], constituted by the Commissioner vide various orders, commencing with the order dated 08.02.2018. 3.2. This order, amongst others, has been assailed by the petitioner, as would be evident upon prayer clause (b), extracted above. 3.3. The other orders, which have been passed in line with the order dated 08.02.2018, are the orders dated 04.04.2018, 09.07.2018, 05.09.2018 and 03.10.2018. 3.4. It is Mr Jain s contention that a bare perusal of Section 54(5) and (6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [in short Central Act ] would show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng respondent to submit certain documents. The queries are available in the system and could be viewed by the Petitioner any time. Since the Petitioner has not submitted the documents till date, the Drawback amount has not been sanctioned to the petitioner [Emphasis is ours.] 4.3. Mr Jain says that a bare perusal of the assertions made in the said paragraph of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, shows that the duty drawback, even according to respondent no. 2, was not availed by the petitioner, as it was not sanctioned. 4.4. In fact, Mr Jain says that towards this end, in anticipation, the petitioner had deposited Rs.4,07,435/-, which, since then, has been refunded to the petitioner by respondent no.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
