2021 (2) TMI 816 - HC - GST

Principles of Natural Justice - non-speaking order - rejection of refund claim - HELD THAT - The orders impugned passed by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority, are cryptic and non-speaking and the reasons assigned for holding the petitioners to be intermediaries, do not sustain as they do not pass the test of law as has been laid down in the judgments. Reliance can be placed in the case of VERIZON COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX, DELHI III, DIVISION-XIV ANR. 2017 (9) TMI 632 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that denial of the refund of the Cenvat credit to Verizon India and the raising of a demand of service tax on the consideration received by it for export of telecommunication services to Verizon US are not sustainable in law. The matter needs to be remanded back to the Appellate Authority, for fresh decision, we have not referred to the merits of the case, lest prejudice is caused to any of the parties - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenges to orders rejecting refund claims by Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority in three writ petitions.

Analysis:
In the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Verma, the court addressed three writ petitions challenging the rejection of refund claims by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority. The court noted that the impugned orders were cryptic and non-speaking, lacking sustainable reasons as per established legal principles. The court referred to various judgments, including Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Gurukripa Raisins Pvt. Ltd., and others, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal standards in determining the status of the petitioners as intermediaries. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders dated 27.05.2020, 11.09.2020, and 05.08.2020 in the respective writ petitions.

The court decided that the matter needed to be remanded back to the Appellate Authority in two writ petitions and to the Adjudicating Authority in the third writ petition for a fresh decision. The court refrained from discussing the merits of the case to prevent prejudice to any party. The petitioners were directed to appear before the respective authorities on a specified date for further proceedings. The authorities were instructed to make a decision and pass an order within two weeks of the appearance of the petitioners, adhering to the legal requirements. If the petitioners' claims were accepted, the consequential benefits were to be granted within one week thereafter. Finally, all three writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and a copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the counsel for the petitioners.