2019 (5) TMI 700 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit - period from July, 2017 to March, 2018 - HELD THAT - Petition disposed off by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the preliminary objections dated 15.4.2019, in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued by respondent No.2 for tax payment and penalty.
2. Refund claim of unutilized Input Tax Credit by the petitioner.
3. Lack of response to preliminary objections filed by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in providing support services to 'Pharmaco Vigilance,' sought a writ of certiorari to quash notices dated 29.1.2019 issued by respondent No.2, along with a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings. The notices demanded tax payments totaling significant amounts for specified periods, accompanied by interest and penalty. The petitioner had earlier claimed a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit, which was rejected by respondent No.2, leading to an ongoing appeal. Despite filing detailed submissions and objections, the petitioner faced non-responsiveness, prompting the writ petition.

2. The petitioner's business activities involve compiling and converting consumer feedback on drugs into reports for utilization. A refund application amounting to &8377;1,53,86,366/- for the period from July 2017 to March 2018 was submitted, but was initially rejected by respondent No.2. Subsequent to this rejection, show cause notices were issued for substantial tax payments, leading to the petitioner's filing of objections and detailed submissions. Notably, a screenshot from the GST Portal indicated that the refund application had been accepted and sanctioned, adding complexity to the situation.

3. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the lack of action on the preliminary objections filed before respondent No.2, emphasizing the need for a decision on the same. In response, the High Court directed respondent No.2 to address the preliminary objections within one week, following due process and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The judgment refrained from delving into the case's merits but focused on procedural fairness and timely resolution of the pending issues.