9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/JC (A)/-33-19-20-GST, dated: 11.02.2020 / 14.02.2020, in Annexure-C as bad in law. b. Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by setting aside the Order-In-Appeal No. MYS-YCS-ADC / JC (A) / -33-19-20-GST, dated: 11.02.2020/ 14.02.2020, in Annexure-C and sanctioning the refund with interest. c. Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus and to hold that the stipulation of lapsing of credit and cut-off date for refund in Notification No.20/2018-CT (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 in Annexure-J is without the authority of law. d. Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July 2018, shall lapse. It is further pointed out that the said notification was clarified by the respondents by issuing one more Circular at Annexure - K dated 24.08.2018. It is also submitted that along with the refund claim, the petitioner had submitted various documents including the summary of stock as on 31.07.2018 and the stock available with the petitioner, which has been cleared as on 31.07.2018 and that the same was cleared subsequently as certified by the Chartered Accountant. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, the respondents have proceeded to pass the aforesaid impugned order without considering or ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be entitled to refund of the same in view of the notifications and circulars of the respondents, in particular, the Notification dated 26.07.2018 and that the clarified Circular dated 24.08.2018 have not been considered or appreciated by the respondents in their proper perspective, which has resulted in erroneous conclusion in rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner. It is also seen that the respondent No.1, which passed the Order-in-original has declined to follow the judgment of the High Court of Gujarath in Shabnam Petrofil's case without assigning any cogent or valid reasons in this regard. It is also significant to note that the petitioner has produced all relevant documents along with the claim for refund including documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
