^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

MANOHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Pet. Counsel

G. Vardini Karthik

B.sakthivel

Res. Counsel

Rajendran Raghavan

Petitioner / Applicant	MANOHAR
Respondent	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Jun 11, 2024
Order No.	W. P. No. 13518 of 2024 And W. M. P. No. 14669 of 2024
Citation	2024(6) TAXREPLY 9899
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 54

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER An order dated 28.12.2023 rejecting the petitioner's request for refund is challenged in this writ petition. Pursuant to an audit, observations were communicated to the petitioner. One of the observations pertained to the petitioner having wrongly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of CGST and SGST instead of IGST. Upon being informed of the above, the petitioner paid sums of Rs. 4,91,390/- and Rs. 4,59,000/- in Form GST DRC 03 dated 13.06.2023. A claim for refund was made thereafter. As regards the month of July 2020, the petitioner asserts that a double payment was made with regard to the difference between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and the GSTR 3B return. Both these amounts were claimed by way of refund. Such claim was rejected by the order impugned herein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned order and pointed out that such order records that the petitioner made payment under DRC 03 in respect of the availment of ITC....