2020 (7) TMI 528 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of efficacious remedy of appeal - Refund of GST - HELD THAT - The present petition cannot be entertained when the petitioner has an equally alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST - The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek its remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to set aside rejection of refund application under Section 54 of Central GST Act, 2017 without exhausting appeal remedy.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside the rejection of their refund application under Section 54 of the Central GST Act, 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner Narela, GST. The respondent argued that the order was appealable before the Additional Commissioner, GST, and the petitioner should have exhausted this remedy before approaching the court directly.

2. The respondent contended that the petitioner bypassed the available appeal remedy and directly approached the court, which is impermissible. On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was part of a batch of petitions seeking refund orders, and no specific decision was made on the petitioner's application. The petitioner also referred to an interim order in another case to support their argument.

3. The court found that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appealing before the Additional Commissioner, GST, which they should have pursued instead of directly filing the petition. The court disposed of the present petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay. The court emphasized that delay alone should not be a ground for the Appellate Authority to reject the appeal on its merits.

4. The petitioner was permitted to rely on the interim order mentioned in their argument, and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider this order while passing a speaking order. The court made it clear that the petitioner could present their case before the Appellate Authority, and the interim order should be taken into account during the appeal process.

5. In conclusion, the court disposed of the present petition, highlighting the importance of following the proper appeal procedure before seeking judicial intervention. The petitioner was directed to pursue their remedies through the Appellate Authority, ensuring that the delay in filing the appeal should not be a sole reason for rejection.