9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1246 - HC - GSTPIL against the GST officers - Doctrine of legitimate expectation - principle against retrospectivity - conduct of an independent, free and fair enquiry against the concerned officers in respect of all refund claims of excess tax (compensation cess) paid prior to the Notification dated 30.9.2019 - inverted tax structure in relation to Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes - vires of Rule 117 of CGST Rules HELD THAT - In view of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and the principle against retrospectivity, the Notification dated 30.9.2019, shall necessarily apply prospectivity in respect of the goods notified on 30.09.2019 to restrict only those refund claims which are in respect of accumulated credit of excess tax paid on such notified input supplies after 30.9.2019 - Both the impugned orders dated 04.10.2019 are not in respect of any such accumulated credit of excess tax paid after 30.9.2019 on such notified input supplies - Therefore, there is no infirmity in these orders granting refund, warranting any interference. Pn individual dispute should not be allowed to be converted into a PIL. It cannot be ruled that this writ petition may be sponsored by some interested persons who are having any grudge against the private respondents. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation petition is dismissed with ₹ 5,000/- cost.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) 2. Retrospective application of Notification No. 3/2019 dated 30.09.2019 3. Legitimacy of refund claims of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) of compensation cess 4. Bona fides of the petitioner Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The court examined whether the PIL was maintainable, focusing on the petitioner's locus standi and bona fides. The petitioner, an advocate, sought directions for an independent inquiry against officers regarding refund claims of excess tax paid before the notification dated 30.09.2019. The court noted that the petitioner did not suffer any personal injury or loss and questioned the source of the petitioner's information on the impugned orders. The court emphasized that PILs should not be used for personal gain or to settle private scores, as stated in the Supreme Court's judgments in CIT v. Vatika Township Private Ltd. and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal. The court concluded that the PIL was a misuse of the process of law and dismissed it with costs. 2. Retrospective Application of Notification No. 3/2019 dated 30.09.2019: The petitioner argued that the notification should apply retrospectively to prevent refund claims for unutilized ITC accumulated before 30.09.2019. The court referred to Section 54 of the CGST Act, which allows refund claims within two years from the relevant date, and noted that the notification did not express any intention for retrospective application. The court cited the Supreme Court's principle against retrospectivity in Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Shabnam Petrofils Pvt. Ltd., confirming that the notification could not be applied retrospectively. Thus, refunds for excess tax paid before 30.09.2019 could not be denied based on the notification. 3. Legitimacy of Refund Claims of Unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess: The court examined the validity of the impugned orders dated 04.10.2019, which sanctioned refunds of unutilized ITC of compensation cess paid before 30.09.2019. The court found no infirmity in these orders, as the notification could not be applied retrospectively. The Gujarat High Court's judgment in Shabnam Petrofils Pvt. Ltd. supported the view that credit taken before the notification was indefeasible and could not be denied. The court upheld the refund orders, noting that any challenge to these orders should follow the remedies provided under the GST Act. 4. Bona Fides of the Petitioner: The court questioned the petitioner's bona fides, as the petition seemed to be sponsored by interested parties with personal grudges against the private respondents. The court highlighted the Supreme Court's caution against entertaining PILs with ulterior motives, as seen in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India. The court found that the petition lacked genuine public interest and was likely filed to settle personal scores. Consequently, the court dismissed the PIL with costs, emphasizing the need for courts to be circumspect in entertaining PILs. Conclusion: The court dismissed the PIL on the grounds of maintainability and lack of bona fides, imposing a cost of ?5,000 on the petitioner. The court held that the notification dated 30.09.2019 could not be applied retrospectively and upheld the refund orders dated 04.10.2019. The judgment emphasized the importance of genuine public interest in PILs and cautioned against their misuse for personal or vested interests.
|
