Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the date of filing of refund claim would be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. I find that the assessee filed refund claim within the stipulated period. On perusal of the letter dt.29.04.2010 of the Range Officer, it is seen that the Range Officer returned the papers on the ground that it is not possible to process to refund claim in the absence of the documents as mentioned therein and the assessee was directed to do the needful. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously accepted the date of filing of the refund claim is on 29.09.2010. Assessee by letter dt.21.10.2010 had categorically requested to withdraw the amount of ₹ 6,47,473.00 as they had no documentary evidence. In the certificate dt.22.04.2011, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant requested to withdraw the refund claim of ₹ 6,47,473.00 as they had no documentary evidence and requested to sanction the remaining amount of ₹ 27,04,323.00. 2. A show cause notice dt.04.11.2010 was issued, proposing to reject the refund claim of ₹ 33,51,796.00 filed on 29.09.2010 for the period June 2009 to March 2010 as time barred. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim filed by the assessee. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication order in so far as the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 19,26,095.00 was upheld as time barred and the amount of ₹ 6,47,473.00 was upheld as the assessee already withdrawn this amount by their letter dt.25.10.2010. It was dire .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ose of limitation. I find that the assessee filed refund claim within the stipulated period. On perusal of the letter dt.29.04.2010 of the Range Officer, it is seen that the Range Officer returned the papers on the ground that it is not possible to process to refund claim in the absence of the documents as mentioned therein and the assessee was directed to do the needful. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously accepted the date of filing of the refund claim is on 29.09.2010. 5. Regarding the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 6,47,473.00, I find force in the contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the said amount was included in the Customer s certificate dt.22.04. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urt was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Hon ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section. It cannot be said that Hon ble Supreme Court laid down the law in that case. Whereas in the case of M/s. Medico Lab, Hon ble Gujarat High Court was dealing with the issue of remand only and after considering the issue in detail, Hon ble High Court had come to the conclusion that the Commissioner has powers to remand. In view of the fact that there are contradictory decisions of the Tribunal and other than the decision of Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana there is no other decision holding a contrary view to that of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Medico Lab, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates