TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uoted decision of this Court in this very assessee, in R.K. KNITS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) ADYAR II ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND OTHERS [ 2011 (11) TMI 779 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] that has been consistently followed in several other cases. In the interests of consistency, there is a direction to the respondent to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today, bearing in mind the decisions of this Court in the cases of R.K.Knits as well as the decisions in Writ Appeals, if available, by then. Petition disposed off. - W.P.No.2198 of 2020 And W.M.P.No.2571 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2022 - Honourable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.Srisankar for Mr.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentation seeking refund as early as on 02.01.2019 that has been kept pending on the ground that the State has filed a Writ Appeal challenging the order passed in the case of R.K.Knits (supra) and thus, the refund application must await a decision in the Writ Appeal. 6.I have, in very similar circumstances as before me now, in the case of Mohib Shoes Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.No.12762 of 2019 dated 30.06.2022, decided the same issue applying the ratio of R.K.Knits, particularly for the reason that there was no stay of the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of R.K.Knits . 7.The operative portion of the order in Mohib Shoes (supra) reads as follows: 4.The issue dealt with in that m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny transaction of taxable purchase in any month, he shall make the claim before the end of the financial year or before ninety days from the date of purchase, whichever is later. 7. In the context of the provision as above, the Hon'ble Court held that the timeline for claim of ITC was mandatory and sacrosanct and there was no indication in the Statute for extension of time. It was thus mandatory and a pre-condition for consideration of the claim for utilisation of ITC. 8. They also noticed the earlier judgment in the case of Jayam and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another [2016 (15) SCC 125], wherein the provisions of Sections 19(20), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act had been challenged. In Jayam and Co., the proposition that wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee as filed, would be taken to be final. 12. In my considered view, the ratio of the aforesaid two judgements would not be applicable in this case. We are not concerned in this case with a claim for utilisation of ITC for adjustment as against output tax liability, but a refund of accumulated ITC. The entitlement of the petitioner to ITC is undisputed. The fact that the petitioner has claimed the benefit of Section 16 relating to zero rated sales is also undisputed. 13.In such circumstances, the strict application of the timelines under the Act will not, in my considered view, be applicable, particularly, in a situation where the assessee concerned, is otherwise entitled in law, to the same. The filing of the form clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
