Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—žš—¼š—¹š—øš—®š˜š—® š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—„š—²š—³š˜‚š—»š—± š—•š—®š˜€š—²š—± š—¼š—» š——š—²š—Æš—¶š˜ š—”š—¼š˜š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "If documents provide necessary particulars under Rule 4A, refunds cannot be denied merely because they are debit notes and not invoices."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s Pragati Agri Products Pvt. Ltd. š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the refund is inadmissible because M/s Marine Container Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. issued debit notes instead of invoices. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: Filed a refund claim that was denied citing improper documentation under Notification No. 41/2012-ST.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal noted that the debit notes contained all necessary details required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It relied on the precedent set in SRF Ltd., which established that refunds cannot be denied solely because the documents are not invoices. As the conditions under Notification No. 41/2012-ST were fulfilled, the denial of the refund was deemed unsustainable.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s Pragati Agri Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 12 January 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling reinforces that valid debit notes containing requisite details are admissible for claiming refunds under the Service Tax Rules.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own