9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out by learned counsel for the petitioner, a refund claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that such refund claim does not fall within the specific categories enumerated in Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019. It should also be noticed, in this regard, that sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act appears to be wide enough to embrace any claim for refund of tax or interest provided such claim is made within a period of two years reckoned from the relevant date. Since the order impugned was issued without providing adequate reasons for rejection of the refund claim, the said order calls for interference. The order impugned is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to recon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the GST regime . Such deposit was made under protest. 3. Thereafter, this Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.9991 of 2020 batch, M/s.DMR Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Rasipuram, Namakkal District (DMR Constructions), by order dated 26.02.2021, concluding that the petitioners therein were entitled to transition the TDS under the TNVAT Act in terms of Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017. In view of said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to refund of sum of Rs.57,98,945/-, which was paid upon wrongful reversal of the transitioned credit. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the said order is unreason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject of the pending litigation, the tax demand was paid under protest. After this Court held that persons such as the petitioners are entitled to transition such credit, it was contended that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the sum paid under protest. In effect, the petitioner's refund claim is in respect of amounts allegedly levied and paid erroneously. This contention is not accepted by learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, who submits that the tax liability arose under the CGST Act and that tax was not imposed unlawfully or erroneously. 6. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the application was filed under the category Any Others . As pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
