Case Law Details
Razack Trading Company Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) (Madras High Court)
In the recent case of Razack Trading Company Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) (W.P.(MD) No. 15302 of 2022), Madras high court held validly upheld the applicability on interest u/s 50 of CGST Act, in case of Erroneous refund.
The petitioner had imported a consignment of split coriander seed and had paid basic customs duty. The petitioner availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basic customs duty paid by the petitioner under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 presumably on the ground that the petitioner was a registered dealer.
This amount was transited by the petitioner by filing TRAN-1 under Section 142 of the CGST Act. Since the amount was lying unutilised, the petitioner claimed for refund of the aforesaid amount which was sanctioned in Form RFD-06.
On realizing the mistake, the Department issued notice. In the notice, the petitioner was directed to pay the aforesaid refund amount along with interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, failing which, the action initiated will be taken under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. In the light of aforesaid order passed by the first respondent the petitioner repaid the amount which was refunded to the petitioner.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
There is no discussion whether the dept has filed an appeal against the refund sanction order. Can an SCN be adjudicated without a valid order of the appellate authority setting aside the refund sanction order?