TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first formal step initiated by the competent authority to put the adjudicatory mechanism into motion. Thus, more than nine years after refund was paid, the authority issued the showcause Notice calling upon the petitioner why the same should not be recovered with penalty. Only on the ground of delay and latches, therefore, we would not permit such an action. Looking to the amount involved and the extent of delay, we have decided the issue only on this ground keeping the main issue of validity of the stand of the Department open - Impugned order set aside - petition disposed off. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3434 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2018 - Mr. Akil Kureshi And Mr. B.N. Karia, JJ. Mr Prakash Shah With Mr Dhaval Shah(235 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstituted as an EOU but from a DTA, sales tax refund benefit would be available ? In such case, the assessee was granted refund of CST. However, many years later, the authorities sought to recover the same, which action, the petitioner had challenged before the High Court. The High Court had come to two conclusions, firstly, that the CST refund benefit would be available to an EOU even if the production was made from a DTA Unit and secondly, that after having processed and paid the refund of such tax, the same could not have been recovered after an unreasonably long period of time. In the context of the latter issue, the Court held and observed as under; 24. There is yet another angle why we would not permit the respondents to make reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under letter dated 12.11.2013 opposing any such payment for return of CST refund, contending interalia that the production was made by an EOU, the goods were manufactured for export and such export obligation was carried out and that only a small portion of the goods was sold in local market as per the policy itself. Therefore, there cannot be disentitlement of the CST waiver benefit in relation to such clearances. 5. Eventually, the competent authority issued a Notice on 08.02.2017 calling upon the petitioner why such refund amount of ₹ 6,19,160/granted under order dated 06.10.2007 should not be recovered with penalty. After hearing the petitioner, the authority passed the impugned order. 6. In the facts of the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
