GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 610 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (3) TMI 610 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Seeking refund of excess amount erroneously collected - Principles of natural justice - Import of "Electro Plating Process" and paid duty by online e-payment mode, while making payment the portal displayed a message "Bank away server application error", whereby, the payment got debited nine times , thereby collecting an excess amount - Held that:- since the third respondent is withholding the amount, excessively paid by the petitioners and when the se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas, Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioners have filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in and connected with Order in Appeal No.C.Cus.II No.504/2015 dated 29.05.2015, passed by the second respondent herein upholding the Order-In-Original No.36021/2015 and 35021/2015 dated 15.04.2015 passed by the third respondent, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconsstitution and against the principles of natural justice a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ayed a message " Bank away server application error", whereby, the payment had got debited nine times amounting to ₹ 2,16,855/- instead of ₹ 24,095/-, thereby collecting an excess of ₹ 1,92,760/-. Immediately, on realizing the excess debit from their bank account held with UCO Bank, a letter dated 16.05.2012 was addressed to the bank to refund the excess amounts debited, totalling ₹ 1,92,760/-. 3. By letter dated 30.05.2012, the Bank informed the petitioners Com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ondents from 16.05.2012 to 25.11.2014. Thereafter, since the respondents did not refund the excess amount, the petitioners filed an application before the third respondent. The third respondent rejected the application, stating that the application had been filed after a period of one year, as contemplated under Sec.27 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved over the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent, by his Ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

timely action. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners have been corresponding with the respondents for getting refund of the amounts from the years 2012 to 2014 and ultimately, they filed an application, seeking for refund of amount on 03.03.2015. 6. Admittedly, the second respondent himself stated that the provisions of Sec.27 of the Customs Act are not applicable to the petitioners' case for the reason that the claim, made by the petitioners, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version