Punjab and Haryana High Court turns down revenue department's plea
Punjab and Haryana High Court turns down revenue department's plea
The assessee had approached CESTAT that ruled in favor of the entitlement of interest on delayed refund
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the revenue department's plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rules.
The two-member bench comprising Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain was dealing with an appeal on the refund and interest amounting to Rs.54 lakhs as central excise duty.
The respondent/assessee having its registered office at Sonepat had applied for central excise duty along with interest before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Panipat. Vide his June 2017 order, the Commissioner sanctioned the refund to the assessee, but the interest amount was rejected.
The assessee approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which ruled that the assessee was entitled to interest on the delayed refund.
Thereafter, the revenue department filed an appeal before the high court questioning the change in the jurisdiction of the authorities after the introduction of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. It contended that the assessee had approached the wrong authorities for the claim.
The court held that the refund claim was filed in January 2016. But it was rejected. Therefore, the assessee, in April 2017, again sought the claim.
Essentially, Section 142 of the Act deals with miscellaneous transitional provisions including the claim for refund filed by any person before/on/after the appointed day. Under the existing laws, the amount of Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) credit/duty/tax/interest is paid.
The bench held, "Section 142 of the Act, when read with Section 2(48) of the Act, is a complete answer to the plea raised by the appellant qua the issue of jurisdiction. The provision explicitly provides that every claim of refund shall be dealt with under the existing law i.e. the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not by the provisions of the Act. Thus, the plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to the GST regime is not available to the appellant."
"It is not disputed that the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Central Excise Act, 1944 are pari material. Therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in an earlier case shall be applicable to the present case," the court added.
