Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Pranay Dhabhai Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 638 of 2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

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.

After considering both sides’ submissions and examining the relevant provisions of the notification, the court found that although the appellant had not obtained registration before filing the refund application, they had obtained it subsequently. According to the court, this fulfilled the condition provided in the notification, as the appellant had registration at the time of rejection of the claim. Therefore, the court concluded that the denial of the refund was unjustified, especially considering the statutory provision exempting SEZ units from service tax on inputs or input services.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031