TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .G.S.T. In any event, he would contend that he will pay the C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. due to the authorities and thereafter, he may be permitted to claim refund of the amount paid towards I.G.S.T. - The same is not seriously opposed by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. Even in the assessment order, dated 05.10.2020, passed by respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kurupam Market Circle, Visakhapatnam, it is held that the office cannot make adjustment of I.G.S.T. into C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. The taxable person may claim refund of I.G.S.T. after payment of C.G.S.T. S.G.S.T. and in view of the same, the objections filed by the taxable person were held not tenable. The present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , highhanded, mechanical, without jurisdiction and bereft of any valid reasons, apart from being illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 265 of the Constitution of India; and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. OR, in the alternative, b. direct the Respondent Authorities to either adjust the amounts paid by the Petitioner under the Integrated Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 towards the alleged dues determined under Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 Andhra Pradesh State Goods Services Tax Act, 2017, respectively; and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner executed the works/services as per the terms of the contract in the recipient s location at Visakhapatnam. As the impugned transactions are interstate transactions, the petitioner collected Integrated Goods Services Tax (for short, I.G.S.T. ) from the recipient and remitted the same to the Government. In the present transaction, the location of the supplier and the place of supply are in two different states. The petitioner, in terms of Section 7 of the I.G.S.T. Act, collected I.G.S.T. and remitted the same to the exchequer. However, on 15.11.2018, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice proposing to treat the transactions as intrastate supply of goods instead of interstate supply of goods. Objections came to be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f I.G.S.T. into C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. The taxable person may claim refund of I.G.S.T. after payment of C.G.S.T. S.G.S.T. and in view of the same, the objections filed by the taxable person were held not tenable. 7. Having regard to the above and in view of the fact that the nature of transaction is not in dispute, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. within a period of three (3) weeks from today and thereafter, make a claim for refund of the amount under I.G.S.T., which the petitioner is entitled to, before respondent No.1, in which event, respondent No.1 shall deal with the same as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. There shall be no or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
