2021 (12) TMI 228 - HC - GST

Seeking direction to respondent no.4 to pass the fresh refund order of total amount without reducing the amount of interest u/s. 50(1) - seeking direction to respondent no 1 2 for constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal within a time frame so that the statutory right of appeal can be exercised - HELD THAT - When the matter was taken up for hearing, the attention of this Court is drawn to the amendments brought under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act in the Finance (No.2), Act, whereby the proviso has been added to Section 15 of the CGST Act, which has been substituted w.e.f. 01.07.2017. According to the learned Standing Counsel, fresh application if is preferred by the petitioner in wake of these amendments, his case shall be considered by the respondent Authority. Learned advocate Shri Avinash Poddar on instructions seeks withdrawal of this matter to file a fresh application before the concerned Authority for him to prefer in two weeks time from receipt of this order. After that once received, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law bearing in mind the amendments in law within six weeks - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Feasibility of filing Second Appeal due to absence of GST Appellate Tribunal.
2. Refund sanction order and interest payment.
3. Consideration of recommendations and quashing of the refund order.
4. Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal within a specific time frame.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order in Appeal by respondent No.3 as the GST Appellate Tribunal was not available. The issue was regarding a refund sanction order by respondent No.2, which lacked interest payment. The petitioner sought directions to consider GST Council recommendations and quash the refund order. Additionally, the petitioner requested the constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal within a stipulated time frame to exercise the statutory right of appeal.

2. During the hearing, amendments under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act were highlighted, specifically the proviso added to Section 15 of the CGST Act. The learned Standing Counsel mentioned that if the petitioner files a fresh application in light of these amendments, the respondent Authority would consider the case. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal of the matter to submit a new application within two weeks, which the respondent Nos.2 and 3 agreed to consider within six weeks, taking into account the legal amendments.

3. The Court acknowledged the request for withdrawal and filing of a fresh application by the petitioner. It was directed that the petitioner could submit a new application within two weeks, and upon receipt, respondent Nos.2 and 3 would review it in accordance with the law, considering the recent legal amendments. The petition was disposed of based on these agreements and actions to be taken by the concerned parties.