Page 14 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

xii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - See under APPEAL TO APPELLATE
AUTHORITY .................................... 519
— of two days in filing refund application cannot be done by Court - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................ 401
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :
— Article 226 - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............... 369
— Article 243G - See under PURE SERVICE ..................... 478
— Article 243W - See under LOCAL AUTHORITY ................. 416
— See also under PURE SERVICE ...................... 478
— See also under TDS ............................. 413
Construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original work,
taxability thereof - See under WORKS CONTRACT ............... 493
Continuous supply of goods, time of supply thereof - See under TIME OF
SUPPLY ....................................... 428
Cum-tax benefit admissibility in suppression case - See under DEMAND .... 409
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 :
— Section 14 - See under VALUATION (GST) .................... 486
Delay in filing appeal when condonable/not condonable - See under
APPEAL ....................................... 519
— of two days in filing refund application cannot be condoned by Court -
See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ...................... 401
DEMAND :
— Adjudication beyond show cause notice - Sustainability - Well settled in
catena of judgments that adjudication order cannot traverse beyond
allegations in show cause notice - Instant case, show cause notice was for
demand of Service Tax - Adjudication on violation of Rule 4(7) of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 simply because appellant had submitted in their reply
to SCN that part of demand was already paid through Cenvat account,
not proper without verifying correctness of appellant’s claim - Impugned
order set aside and matter remitted to adjudicating authority to verify
arithmetical correctness of duty paid by appellant from Cenvat account -
Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Mackintosh Burn Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service
Tax, Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) ................................ 409
— and interest - Tax wrongfully collected and paid to Central Government -
Admittedly, the petitioner-Company discharged their tax liability under
IGST head, but inadvertently or otherwise, the petitioner deposited the
amount under CGST head - Petitioner-Company neither concealed the
transaction nor committed any fraud in discharging its tax liability - Bona
fides of the petitioner-Company not in doubt, there being some confusion
in initial stage of the CGST regime, and cash wrongly deposited in the
wrong electronic cash ledger - Petitioner entitled to refund of the amount
of tax, i.e., ` 41,98,642 deposited by them under the CGST head, under
Section 77(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with
Section 19(2) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Petitioner-
Company directed to deposit the amount of ` 41,98,642, under the IGST
head within a period of 10 days and shall not be liable to pay any interest
on the said amount — Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Jhar.) ..... 393

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  134