9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho have refused the adjustment of the amount of pre-deposit, stating that the amount is not verifiable. This amount remained as the Revenue deposit with the Department and was never adjusted. Further, this amount is not a part of the admitted tax - the Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund of Rs.29,36,382/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order along with interest @12% per annum from end of three months from the date of filing of the application for refund, till the date of grant of refund. Appeal allowed. - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rishabh Jain, Advocate for the appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of Rs.29,36,382.00 cannot be treated as a pre-deposit against the show cause notice for which the SVLDRS-I application has been filed. Accordingly, it is requested to deposit the amount of Rs.2,67,29,046.50 through the link available on SVLDRS-3. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to deposit the full amount of Rs.2,67,29,046.50 without getting credit of the amount of pre-deposit made during investigation for the reasons wholly attributable to the Department and/or for failure on the part of the Department to verify the tax already paid. 3. However, the appellant, as advised, in order to avail benefit of the settlement scheme, deposited the full amount without the benefit of adjustment and were issued settlement/discharge c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signated Committed under the SVLDR Scheme stated that they are unable to verify this amount, which is evident from the remarks in SVLDRS Form-III. Thus, the Department cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Further, refusal of this amount in question is hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India, as no amount can be collected and/or retained by the Government or the Tax Authorities, which is not authorised by the law. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 6. Ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent/Revenue relies on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is no dispute as regards payment of this amount in question. Further, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
