Pranay Dhabhai Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Director Not Liable for Company’s Tax Dues under UPVAT unless there is evidence of intentional wrongdoing on their part.: Allahabad HC
The case of Roop Telesonic Ultrasonix Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) revolves around the denial of a service tax refund claim made by the appellant under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. The refund claim was rejected on the grounds that the appellant had not obtained Service Tax registration before filing the refund claim, as required by the notification. However, the appellant argued that they had obtained the registration after filing the refund claim and thus had complied with the condition. They contended that the denial of the refund based solely on procedural lapse was not justified, especially when the payment of service tax and use of service in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) was not under dispute.
The appellant cited various judgments in support of their argument, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not lead to the rejection of refunds. They highlighted cases where similar procedural issues did not result in the denial of refunds. Additionally, they pointed out that Section 26 of the SEZ Act exempts SEZ units from taxes on inputs or input services used within the SEZ, reinforcing their claim for a refund.
