Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1167 - HC - GSTIssues: 1. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Refund of IGST paid and rejection of the refund application. 3. Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay. 4. Lack of reasons for rejection of refund application. 5. Setting aside orders and remanding for denovo consideration. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The High Court decided to dispose of both petitions with the consent of the parties by a common order. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to approach under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and exercised its jurisdiction, particularly considering the provisions of Article 300A. Refund of IGST paid and rejection of the refund application: The petitioner, engaged in business activities, sought a refund of IGST paid after supplying goods to an Export Oriented Unit. The refund application was rejected without reasons or proper application of mind by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court found the rejection order lacking reasoning and set it aside due to non-application of mind. Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay: The Commissioner rejected the appeal due to a delay of 29 days beyond the prescribed period, noting the inability to extend the time limit. However, the High Court, having the power to condone the delay, accepted the cause shown by the petitioner, considering the complexity of GST procedures and the petitioner's lack of legal expertise. Lack of reasons for rejection of refund application: The Court observed deficiencies in the rejection order, emphasizing the absence of reasons and the use of a template without proper modifications. Due to the lack of application of mind by the Assistant Commissioner, the Court set aside the rejection order. Setting aside orders and remanding for denovo consideration: The High Court quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner, remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for denovo consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit deficient documents within a week, and the Assistant Commissioner was instructed to give a personal hearing before deciding on the refund application by a specified date. The Court clarified that the determination of the refund amount was left open for the Assistant Commissioner to decide.
|