9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 935 - HC - GSTRejection of refund claim - remand order passed with specific direction upon the Adjudicating Authority to consider the petitioner s application and pass a speaking order - remand order passed by the higher authority by clearly defying and in violation of the order of the higher Appellate Authority which was binding upon the Adjudicating Authority being a subordinate to the Appellate Authority. HELD THAT - Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents are not in a position to defend such conduct of the respondents/Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order dated 21st February, 2022, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order rejecting refund claim, defiance of order by Adjudicating Authority, administrative anarchy due to non-compliance.
The High Court of Calcutta heard a writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 21st February, 2022, which rejected the petitioner's claim for refund. The order was passed on the remand order of the Appellate Authority from 26th March, 2021, directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider the petitioner's application and issue a speaking order. The Adjudicating Authority defied the order of the higher Appellate Authority, stating it was not in accordance with the law and thus rejected the refund claim. This behavior was deemed highly deprecable as it went against the norms of quasi-judicial authority's function and could lead to administrative anarchy. The Court emphasized that if the Adjudicating Authority disagreed with the Appellate Authority's order, the proper course of action would have been to file a further appeal. The Commissioner of CGST was directed to take note of this conduct and issue instructions to prevent such incidents in the future. The learned Advocates for the respondents were unable to defend the conduct of the Adjudicating Authority, which was found to be in violation of the higher Appellate Authority's order. After considering the facts and submissions of the parties, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 21st February, 2022, and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity for the petitioner or its authorized representative to be heard within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation and direction. A copy of the order was to be forwarded to the Commissioner of CGST by the petitioner for necessary action.
|
