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

2020 (12) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner as also the scope and ambit of Sections 51 and 54 of the CGST Act. In the instant case, as is evident from the facts stated in the writ petition as also from a perusal of the claim for refund preferred by the 2nd respondent, what the petitioner was essentially claiming was the refund of the balance remaining in the Electronic Cash Ledger, that was maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 54(1) deals with claims for refund of any tax and interest or other amount paid by the assessee, and the proviso to Section 54(1) deals with claim for refund of any balance in the Electronic Cash Ledger. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that during the period for which the refund was claimed by the petitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA FOR THE RESPONDENT : R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated to be a partnership firm engaged in running an industrial unit, manufacturing coconut oil from copra. It is the case of the petitioner that a considerable quantity of the sales effected by it is to SUPPLYCO and FACT, who deduct tax at the rate of 2% on payments made to the petitioner in terms of Section 51 of the GST Act. As part of the procedural compliance required under the GST Act, the petitioner is obliged to maintain two electronic ledgers with the department viz. the Elect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t.P3(a) and P3(b) applications to cover separate periods. The said applications preferred before the 1st respondent were later transmitted to the 2nd respondent for adjudication, and the latter, by Ext.P4 order, rejected the claim for refund preferred by the petitioner citing Section 51 of the CGST Act and pointing out that, inasmuch as there was no excess deduction or erroneous deduction made by the deductor of tax in the instant case, the refund claimed by the petitioner could not be processed in terms of Section 54 of the Act. Although the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent against Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he claim for refund preferred by the 2nd respondent, what the petitioner was essentially claiming was the refund of the balance remaining in the Electronic Cash Ledger, that was maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 54(1) deals with claims for refund of any tax and interest or other amount paid by the assessee, and the proviso to Section 54(1) deals with claim for refund of any balance in the Electronic Cash Ledger. The latter claim has to be read in the backdrop of the provisions of Section 49(6) of the Act, which clearly provides that the balance in the Electronic Cash Ledger or Electronic Credit Ledger after payment of tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount payable under the Act or the Rules made there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a balance in the Electronic Cash Ledger, after meeting the known liabilities of the petitioner towards tax, interest or any other amount under the Act, and if there was such a balance, the refund had necessarily to be granted to the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view that Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent cannot be legally sustained. The said order is, therefore, quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to ascertain the excess amount lying to the credit of the petitioner in his Electronic Cash Ledger after making provision for any known and determined liability of the petitioner towards tax, interest, penalty or other amounts under the Act. The 2nd respondent shall thereafter refund the said excess amount to the petitioner within t .....

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