2022 (12) TMI 1292 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Refund claim - Intermediary services - Circular bearing No.159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 - learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of availability of equitable and alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal, the present petition is not maintainable - HELD THAT - In the light of the submission and the Circular dated 20.09.2021 which has come into effect during the pendency of the present writ petition, it is opined that the impugned orders as well as the refund orders at Annexure-K dated 11.02.2019, Annexure-L dated 22.05.2019, Annexure-M dated 25.05.2019 and Annexure-N dated 14.12.2019 deserve to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writs to quash impugned orders-in-appeal and orders-in-original, direct refund sanction, consider future refund claims, and costs. Respondents rejected petitioner's refund claims partially. Petitioner challenged orders before High Court. Circular issued during petition pendency clarifying intermediary services. Petitioner argued Circular not considered in impugned orders. Respondents argued alternative remedies available, including appeal. High Court considered facts, submissions, and Circular, set aside impugned orders and refund orders, remitted matter to respondents for reconsideration.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought various reliefs through a writ petition, including quashing impugned orders-in-appeal and orders-in-original, directing refund sanction, considering future refund claims, and seeking costs. The respondents had rejected a portion of the petitioner's refund claims, leading to the petitioner approaching the High Court for redressal. During the pendency of the petition, a Circular clarifying "Intermediary services" was issued, which the petitioner argued had not been taken into account in the impugned orders.

The High Court examined the contentions raised by both parties, with the petitioner emphasizing the importance of the Circular in the adjudication of the case. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that alternative remedies, such as an appeal to the Appellate Authority or Tribunal, were available, rendering the present petition not maintainable. However, the High Court, considering the facts and submissions, as well as the Circular issued during the case proceedings, concluded that the impugned orders and refund orders deserved to be set aside.

In the final order, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal and the orders-in-original. Additionally, the refund orders were also set aside, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to submit further pleadings or documents to the respondents for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The matter was remitted back to the concerned respondents for a fresh review of the petitioner's claim, taking into account the Circular issued and ensuring sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.