2020 (7) TMI 549 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal - Refund of GST - rejection on the ground that it involves multiple tax periods - 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:
Challenge to rejection of refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without exhausting appeal remedy before Additional Commissioner, GST.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction to entertain petition without exhausting appeal remedy
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 directly before the High Court without first appealing to the Additional Commissioner, GST. The respondent argued that the impugned order was appealable before the Additional Commissioner, GST, and the petitioner should have exhausted this remedy before approaching the High Court. The respondent relied on a previous order by a Coordinate Division Bench to support this contention. The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the impugned order was part of a batch of petitions seeking refund orders, and no specific order on the merits of the petitioner's case was passed. The petitioner also cited an interim order by a Division Bench in another case to support its position. The High Court, considering the precedent set by the Coordinate Division Bench, held that the petitioner should have pursued the alternate efficacious remedy of appealing before the Additional Commissioner, GST. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the present petition, granting the petitioner liberty to seek remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, with an application for condonation of delay if necessary. The High Court emphasized that delay alone should not be a ground for the Appellate Authority to reject the appeal on merits and allowed the petitioner to rely on the interim order in its favor. The Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks of filing.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition for challenging the rejection of the refund application under the CGST Act, 2017, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy before the Additional Commissioner, GST. The judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting alternate efficacious remedies before approaching the High Court and provided specific directions for the appeal process before the Appellate Authority.