9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcept in some exceptional circumstances, where a clear case is made out or where the law and facts admit of no other course and authority is acting stubborn, a mandamus to act in a particular way or to exercise powers in a specific manner is not typically issued. Here, there was failure to expeditiously discharge the duty of disposing of the refund applications. Therefore, a mandamus must be issued to direct the expeditious disposal of the refund applications. But, in this case, a mandamus cannot be issued to directly refund the amount claimed, thereby denying the authorities an opportunity to examine the petitioner s refund claim following the law and on its merits. The respondents are directed to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 11 May 2015 along with the Corrigendum dated 3 June 2015 within eight weeks from the date of uploading of the present order - petition disposed off. - M.S. SONAK JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Prasad Paranjape Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan i/b. Lumiere Law Partners. For the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Ram Ochani a/w Mr. Saket Ketkar. JUDGMENT (PER JITENDRA JAIN J):- 1. Heard learned counsel for the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 and 12 April 2023 and raised various contentions and prayed for adjudication of the show cause notice since non-adjudication of the show cause notice and the refund applications was impacting its working capital requirements. It is on this backdrop, the present petition is filed seeking relief stated above. 6. Mr. Shroff, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice dated 11 May 2015 having not been adjudicated till today has become stale and on account of delayed adjudication, the said show cause notice should be quashed and set aside. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs. M/s. Citi Bank 2021 (12) TMI 483, the issue of service tax on interchange fees is no more res integra and therefore, no purpose would be served on adjudication of the show cause notice. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2024 (80) G.S. T. L. 134 (Bom.) has on similar circumstances directed the respondents-revenue to refund the amount p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 11 May 2015 is concerned, the petitioners themselves vide various letters from April 2021, and last being April 2023, have requested the respondents to adjudicate upon the show cause notice. In our view, after having called upon the respondents for adjudication of the show cause notice as late as April 2023, today, it is not appropriate for the petitioner to seek prayer for quashing the same. The request for adjudication of the show cause notice was made vide various letters by the petitioner from April 2021 to April 2023, moreso even after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Citi Bank (supra) which, according to the petitioner, covers the issue raised in the show cause notice. Therefore, to seek quashing of the show cause notice on the ground of delay today, after having prayed for adjudication of the show cause notice as late as April 2023, cannot be accepted. We, therefore, reject the petitioner's prayer. However, the issue of alleged delay in adjudication of the show cause notice is kept open for the petitioner to be raised before the adjudicating authority, in addition to any other ground which the petitioner may raise on the merits of the case. 11. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside by the appellate authority. No further proceedings were taken, and it was in these circumstances that the petitioner was deprived of the refund, although the order was in its favour. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are at the stage of the show cause notice and the petitioner themselves having prayed for adjudication of the show cause notice, the facts are distinguishable from the decision relied upon in the case of HSBC (supra) by the petitioner. In the case of HSBC (supra), no show cause notice was issued after the remand order of the appellate authority, and in the absence of such steps, the Court passed an order. 14. In the instant case, the show cause notice is pending adjudication. The decision in the case of HSBC (supra) was rendered on these facts and the facts being distinguishable from the facts of the petitioner; in our view, the same cannot be relied upon for seeking the prayer of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount in the present petition. In our view, if we grant such a prayer, the adjudication of the show cause notice would become infructuous moreso the petitioners themselves have prayed for adjudication of the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
