9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VUR [ 2023 (9) TMI 1548 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , this Court had directed the petitioner to refund claim and disburse the amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Merely because the tax was paid by the petitioner ipso facto would not entitle the petitioner to refund the amount paid as the issue was revenue neutral. The amount that was paid by the petitioner on ocean freight would have been availed as Input Tax Credit and utilized then and there. Therefore, the petitioner was as such, not entitled to refund claim much less interest. Be that as it may, the rights which have accrued to the petitioner so far need not be disturbed. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition shows that the petitioner is avaricious and is greedy and taking undue advantage of the Court proceedings even though the petitioner unilaterally has not suffered any prejudice. Only, where IGST on ocean freight charges were paid on reverse charge basis/mechanism and were borne by the importer, who was not liable/who is no more liable to pay GST alone can be said to have been prejudiced. Under these circumstances, there is no case made out for granting any relief to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use different means of persuasion ranging from collaboration to contestation; and (c) The Government while exercising its rule-making power under the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act is bound by the recommendations of the GST Council. However, that does not mean that all the recommendations of the GST Council made by virtue of the power Article 279A (4) are binding on the legislature s power to enact primary legislations; (ii) On a conjoint reading of Sections 2(11) and 13(9) of the IGST Act, read with Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, the import of goods by a CIF contract constitutes an inter-state supply which can be subject to IGST where the importer of such goods would be the recipient of shipping service; (iii) The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes. The specification of the recipient in this case the importer by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. The Government by notification did not specify a taxable person different from the recipient prescribed in Section 5(3) of the IGST Act for the purposes of reverse charge; (iv) Section 5(4) of the IGST Act enables the Central Government to speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions with regard to non-payment of interest by the revenue to the assessee for the money remaining with the Government, the said section is introduced for payment of interest by the Department for delay in grant of refunds. A general right exists in the State to refund any tax collected for its purpose, and a corresponding right exists to refund to individuals any sum paid by them as taxes which are found to have been wrongfully exacted or are believed to be, for any reason, inequitable. The statutory obligation to refund carried with it the right to interest also. This is true in the case of assessee under the Act. 32. ....... 37. A tax refund is a refund of taxes when the tax liability is less than the tax paid. As per the old section an assessee was entitled for payment of interest on the amount of taxes refunded pursuant to an order passed under the Act, including the order passed in an appeal. In the present fact scenario, the deductor/assessee had paid taxes pursuant to a special order passed by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer. In the appeal filed against the said order the assessee has succeeded and a direction is issued by the appellate authority to refund the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Union of India , 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 392 (Guj.). ii. Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited Vs. Union of India , 2022 (65) G.S.T.L. 261 (Guj.). iii. Panji Engineering Private Limited Vs. Union of India , (2023) 9 Centax 419 (Guj.). 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. 10. That apart, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave its decision in Mohit Mineral's case (referred to supra) on 19.05.2022 and that the petitioner made a refund claim only on 04.04.2023 and that eventually the refund claim was also rejected by the respondent vide order dated 18.07.2023 . The rejection was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.19991 of 2023, which came to be allowed on 22.09.2023 . 11. It is submitted that after the order dated 22.09.2023 was passed, the refund claims were duly processed and the amounts were refunded to the petitioner. Pursuant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been extracted above. 18. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a supplier within the meaning of Section 2(105) of the CGST Act and was liable to pay tax on the supplies effected by the petitioner. Therefore, although the petitioner shall not be held liable to pay tax on reverse charge basis pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, the refund together with interest ought to have been ordered subject to the petitioner proving that there was no unjust enrichment as was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohit Mineral's case (referred to supra). 19. The fact remains that the Input Tax Credit that was availed by the assessee under the provisions of the respective GST Acts and the rules thereunder would entitle utilization of the Input Tax Credit for discharging the tax liability under the provisions of the respective GST Acts. This aspect ought to have been examined by the respondent before sanctioning the refund claim even though in the earlier round of litigation, by an order dated 22.09.2023 in W.P.(MD) No.19991 of 2023, this Court had directed the petitioner to refund claim and disburse the amount within a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
