2021 (5) TMI 931 - HC - Central Excise

Refund / Recovery of alleged excess amount of the money refunded earlier to the petitioner towards excise duties - case of petitioner is that though the petitioner is entitled to special rate to get these benefits and applied for finalizing the same, the authorities have not considered the same despite repeated representations submitted in that regard - HELD THAT - It is directed that the respondent No.2, i.e., Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Guwahati shall dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner including the one dated 27.01.2021 for fixation of special rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also directed that till such decision is taken by the authorities on consideration of the representation(s) submitted by the petitioner, the authorities shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice dated 01.01.2021 challenged in this writ petition. This Court would make it clear that any such repayment in instalments may be made by the petitioner after disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner in the manner directed above and if there be any amount to be refunded, the same be refunded in equal instalments as indicated in the aforesaid letter dated 29.01.2021 - List along with WP(C) No.2841/2021 on 14.07.2021.

Summary

Issues: Challenge of demand notice for refund of excess amount; Special rate entitlement; Pending similar writ petitions; Interim relief sought.

The judgment pertains to a challenge against a demand notice dated 01.01.2021 seeking a refund of an alleged excess amount previously refunded to the petitioner towards excise duties. The petitioner, an industry in Assam, contends that despite being entitled to a special rate for benefits, the authorities have not considered their application for finalizing the same. The petitioner established the industry in Assam based on the cent percent excise duty exemption granted to certain industries in the state. Changes in the exemption rate led to litigation reaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which upheld the new fiscal norm under Notification No.20/2008 and subsequent Notification No.38/2008, allowing special rates for benefits to industrial units. The petitioner, aggrieved by the demand notice, filed a writ petition challenging it.

Several similar writ petitions are pending before the Court, claiming relief against such demand notices for refunding amounts released to industries. The Court referred to an interim order in another case directing the Commissioner of CGST to dispose of the petitioner's application for fixation of a special rate within four weeks, prohibiting coercive measures until a decision is made. The petitioner sought similar interim relief in this case, which the Standing Counsel for GST did not object to. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner to decide on the petitioner's representations for a special rate within four weeks, restraining any coercive actions based on the challenged demand notice until a decision is reached.

The Standing Counsel for GST mentioned a request from the petitioner to allow repayment of dues in 14 equal installments, which may be considered after the disposal of the petitioner's representation. Any refundable amount should also be refunded in equal installments as per the petitioner's request. The Court scheduled the case to be listed along with another petition on 14.07.2021.