2021-TIOL-2101-HC-KAR-GST
Ganesha Enterprises Vs CTO
GST - Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash GST DRC-07 dated 15.07.2020 and for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to refund the tax, penalty and cess amounting to Rs.19,34,140/- collected from the petitioner - Principal contention is that the order passed u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act was not uploaded on the portal and certified copy was not issued despite request - Counsel for Revenue submits that the order was communicated to the authorized representative of the petitioner; that due to technical glitch the uploading of the order was not possible; that the certified copy would be issued within a week - Petitioner submits that if the certified copy is issued and the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against such order within the period of limitation prescribed, the grievance of the petitioner would be substantially redressed.
Held : In the light of the undertaking by the respondent to issue a fresh certified copy, the petition is disposed of - Petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate steps of legal redressal within the time permitted under law to be reckoned from the date of issuance of fresh certified copy: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2100-HC-MAD-GST
JK Engineering And Electro Platers Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - 142(1) of the GST Rules - Petitioner seeks quashing of the order as being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Held: Though Form GST DRC-01 notice has been subsequently issued, even if reply for such notice has not been made by the petitioner, the respondent could have considered the earlier reply dated 14.10.2020, which he received only 5 days before the Form DRC-01 notice was issued through online - Therefore, statement made by Assessment Officer in the impugned order dated 18.11.2020, that the petitioner has not replied to DRC-01 notice is a total non-application of mind, as the very detailed reply having been received by the respondent just 5 days prior to the said DRC-01 notice, the said reason ought not to have been stated by the respondent in the impugned order - Court feels that the impugned order can very well be interfered with - Impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent / Assessment Officer - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 10, 11]
- Matter remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2099-HC-MAD-GST
Steel Centre Vs STO
GST - Three orders, all dated 08.07.2021 have been assailed in the writ petitions - Petitioner submits that the objections of the writ petitioner has not been considered and objections of writ petitioner not being considered is violation of one of the facets of 'Natural Justice Principle' ['NJP'] - Revenue counsel points out that alternate remedy is available to writ petitioner qua all three impugned orders and alternate remedy is appeal under Section 107 of TN-GST Act and C-GST Act
Held: [para 7, 12, 13, 14, 15]
+ With regard to NJP violation, if the articulation in the impugned orders is insufficient or in other words, if it is not ample or adequate, it becomes a question of whether it is terse and epigrammatic or laconic. Even a terse order can be eloquent. An order can be terse but epigrammatic. It can be tersely eloquent. An order can appear to give out reason, but it can be laconic.
+ In the case on hand ITC being allegedly adjusted towards outward tax liability turns heavily on facts/figures and it would be appropriate for an Appellate Authority which can go into facts and have the benefit of records to go into this. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that this is a case where objections of writ petitioner not being considered point is compelling enough to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction on the teeth of alternate remedy.
+ Court is of the considered view that on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, alleged NJP violation point is not compelling enough to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
+ Alternate remedy rule is no doubt not an absolute rule. In other words, alternate remedy rule is discretionary and it is a self-imposed restraint qua writ jurisdiction. However, Supreme Court in a long line of authorities i.e., catena of case laws has held that alternate remedy rule has to be very strictly applied i.e., with utmost rigour when it comes to fiscal Statute.
+ Supreme Court in Commercial Steel Limited case = 2021-TIOL-234-SC-GST-LB , while reiterating the Rule of alternate remedy rule qua fiscal Statute has culled out the exceptions to alternate remedy rule and held that interference in writ jurisdiction shall be only under exceptional circumstances and there is also an adumbration of exceptional circumstances.
+ Court has come to the conclusion that alleged NJP facet violation in this case is not compelling enough. Absent compelling NJP violation, as there is no other exception (exceptions to alternate remedy rule) that arises in the case on hand, it is clear that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy by way of statutory appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act and C-GST Act.
+ It is open to the writ petitioner to make a plea before the Appellate Authority that the time spent in this Court in these writ petitions should be excluded (under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963) for the purpose of computation of limitation qua appeals. If the writ petitioner chooses to do so, the same shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Appellate Authority.
- Writ Petitions dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
