9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. The present writ appeal is filed by Union of India challenging the order of the learned single judge insofar as the following directions viz., a) To refund the Goods and Service Tax paid for the period 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018; b) Not to collect GST for the period July 2019 to March 2021 on the premise that the collection would be followed by a refund and thus the entire exercise is revenue neutral. 2. In this judgment, parties are referred to in the same ranking as in the writ petition. Petitioner viz., Flemingo Duty Free Shop Private Limited, is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner is stated to be the first private entity in India to be engaged in the business of operation and management of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were Zero Rate in terms of Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as IGST Act). Respondent No.3 issued to petitioner an invoice inclusive of GST for the month of October 2017. Petitioner informed 3rd and 4th respondent that levy of GST was without authority of law. Nevertheless, petitioner paid taxes charged for the month of October 2017 under protest while reserving its right to claim refund of amount collected under CGST/SGST. Respondent No.3 continued to issue monthly invoices including CGST and SGST for the months of November and December 2017. 2.4.Aggrieved, petitioner preferred a writ petition before High Court of Judicature Madras,Madurai Bench in W.P.(MD)No.2129 of 2018. The Madurai Bench of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd thereafter claim refund under Section 54 of the GST Act read with Section 16 of IGST Act. (Refund granted.) 01.01.2018 to 31.07.2019 Respondent No.3 and 4 proceeded to discharge GST liability of Rs. 18.68 crores, though same was not collected from the petitioner. July 2019 to till date Stay granted by Madurai Bench of this Court and thus Respondent No.3 and 4 has neither collected GST nor remitted the same. 2.6. Importantly, the learned single judge records that the petitioner during the course of hearing had agreed to discharge the Goods and Service Tax from April 2021 and thereafter claim refund in terms of Section 16 of IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts. With regard to the period 01.01.2018 to 31.06.2019 the 3rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is not seriously disputed by the revenue/Union, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Judge. The Apex Court on more than one occasion held that no appeal need be preferred where the tax effect is revenue neutral. The following decisions are relevant: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur v. J.K. Charitable Trust, Kamal Tower, Kanpur (2009) 1 SCC 196:: "14. ... Similarly, where the effect of the decision is revenue neutral there may not be any need for preferring the appeal. All these certainly provide the foundation for making a departure." The above was reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Citi Bank. (2024) 469 ITR 410 (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise & Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
