Page 47 - GSTL_20th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 3

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI v. PAY PAL INDIA PVT. LTD. 261
REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Karunakar, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devi, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Though the writ petition has been filed against the impugned
order dated 24-1-2020 bearing reference in GSTIN.33AXLPA4540R1Z8/17-18, the
respondent has now passed another order dated 24-6-2020 bearing reference in
TIN.3397566000/17-18. By the said order dated 24-6-2020, the respondent has
recognized that the petitioner is entitled for a refund of excess amount of
Rs. 13,38,958/-, which was sought to be denied vide the impugned order as tran-
sitional credit. According to the petitioner, the transitional credit was adjusted
against the tax liability under the Tamil Nadu Goods and [Services] Tax Act,
2017 by the petitioner.
2. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since
the transitional credit, which has been now allowed by way of refund has al-
ready been adjusted by the petitioner, the respondent may be directed to give
credit and adjust the same as otherwise they may take steps to demand interest
under Section 50 of the said Act.
3. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
4. The respondent vide order dated 24-6-2020 has now categorically ac-
cepted that there was excess amount, which is liable to be refunded to the peti-
tioner. The petitioner had also adjusted the same from transitional credit availed
by the petitioner towards its tax liability.
5. Therefore, question of payment of interest by the petitioner under
Section 50 of the said Act, does not arise as the said amount is sought to be re-
funded. The writ petition is therefore liable to be closed in the light of the subse-
quent order dated 24-6-2020 of the respondent.
6. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation. No
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

_______

2020 (39) G.S.T.L. 261 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dr. Vineet Kothari and Krishnan Ramasamy, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI
Versus
PAY PAL INDIA PVT. LTD.
1
CMA No. 1069 of 2020, decided on 10-7-2020
Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit - Export of service - Registration,
necessity of - Issue no longer res integra having been decided by this High
Court in cases reported at 2018-TIOL-1126-HC-MAD-ST and 2017 (3) G.S.T.L.
45 (Mad.) holding that registration of assessee was not required for grant of
refund aforesaid - Thus, even though assessee was not registered with Service
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order No. 40337/2019, dated 14-2-2019 by CESTAT, Chennai.
GST LAW TIMES  20th August 2020  47