|
2023-TIOL-893-HC-AHM-GST
Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Refund of ITC - Petitioner submits that they erroneously lodged claims for a lower amount of Rs.1,00,47,38,439/- due to inadvertent arithmetical error of their employee and, therefore, the respondents have sanctioned and paid refund aggregating to Rs.1,00,47,38,439/- - It is further stated that when the petitioner realized the error and lodged supplementary refund claims for the left out amount of refund being Rs.10,20,28,733/-, the respondents have refused to sanction and pay such refund, therefore, the present petition.
Held: It is clear [from s.54 of CGST Act, 2017, s.16 of IGST Act, 2017 & rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017] that the "refund amount" means the maximum refund that is admissible - It is relevant to note that as the petitioner had already filed refund application under Clause 7(c) i.e. accumulated ITC category at first point of time, for the same month and same period, another/supplementary application for the refund of the differential amount of refund (not claimed by the petitioner on account of arithmetical error on the part of the petitioner) cannot be filed on the portal and, therefore, there was no option for the petitioner to submit the application under the category "any other" - Bench is of the view that this is nothing but technical error and for such technical error, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected without examining the same by the respondent authority on its own merits and in accordance with law - It is settled law that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to a technical error or lacunae in the electronic system - Bench is of the view that the said claim of the petitioner for refund of the left out amount of Rs.10,20,28,733/- cannot be rejected outright merely on technicality and that too when the substantive conditions are satisfied - Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to furnish manually the refund applications for refund of the left out amount of Rs.10,20,28,733/- - Exercise to be undertaken within six weeks of the receipt of the application - Petition allowed: High Court [para 10, 11, 14, 15]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-892-HC-JHARKHAND-CX
Tata Steel Ltd Vs UoI
CX - Petitioner in all these writ applications have initially challenged the respective show cause notices (SCN) of the year 1994 to 1997 and the respective notices of personal hearing issued in the year 2022, i.e., after a lapse of about 27 to 29 years - During pendency of these writ applications the respondent-Department vide its common Order in Original dated 17.2.2023 - Petitioner thus filed interlocutory application in respective applications which was allowed by this Court. Held: Action of the Respondent Commissioner is against the settled principles of law which demands that the Revenue Officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities and that the principle of judicial discipline requires that the orders of the higher appellate authorities are followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities - Judicial propriety and judicial discipline required the respondent to await the adjudication of the writ petitions when facts of the present writ petitions were pari materia to the facts of W.P.(T) No.308 of 2023 save and except the date of issuance of show cause notices and date of issuance of personal hearing - When this Court was hearing the similar issue; the respondents should not have continued the proceeding on the same subject - As a matter of fact, the Commissioner has not acted in a bonafide manner and has attempted to make the present writ petitions infructuous - When the show cause notices were kept pending for 26 -27 years; there was no reason to proceed with such great speed in passing the impugned order – Commissioner has sought to justify his action in the counter-affidavit filed - Such statements are unbecoming of the respondent authorities who fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India - The respondents have a duty to act fairly and reasonably even in the matters of taxation, the revenue must act rational - A lapse of 18 years from 2004 to 2022 remains unexplained - Neither is there an explanation for any change of circumstances for taking out the notices from the call book in November 2022 - In such circumstances, the SCN and the OIO cannot be countenanced – SCNs, notice of personal hearing and OIO is quashed and set aside - Writ applications stand allowed: High Court [para 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24] - Petitions allowed: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-891-HC-AHM-CX
Pr.CCGST & CE Vs Reliance Industries Ltd
CX - CENVAT - Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - Revenue is in appeal against order of CESTAT - Respondent initially paid the amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services used in relation to the manufacture of exempted clearance of petroleum product namely Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) - They later on claimed refund of the amount so paid and which was rejected by the adjudicating authority - However, Commissioner(A) allowed the assessee's appeal with consequential relief - Revenue appeal against this order was rejected by the CESTAT, hence the present appeal.
Held: There is no gainsaying that in the similar set of facts and involving identical issue in the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. being Tax Appeal No. 219 of 2022 = 2022-TIOL-683-HC-AHM-CX came to be decided by the Division Bench of this court on 5.5.2022 - It arose out of the order of the Central Excise Tribunal rejecting the refund claim of the several respondents with regard to the CENVAT credit reversed/paid for the inputs attributable to LPG products in terms of rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules for the period between April, 2015 to March, 2016 - Noticeably, substantial questions of law which were subject matter in Tax Appeal No. 219 of 2022 and those framed in the present appeal, are same and nearly identical - It may be noted that the aforesaid judgment dated 5.5.2022 of the Division Bench of this court was relied on by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in respect of similar claim of refund by the very company in relation to the period from April, 2010 to March, 2011, to set aside the Order-in-Original which rejected the refund request - No question of law, much less any substantial question of law can be said to be arising - The proposed substantial questions of law are already considered, decided and answered - Appeal stands meritless, hence dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5, 5.2, 6.1, 7]
- Appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-890-HC-AHM-CUS
Meghmani Industries Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner has prayed for direction to respondent no.2 Development Commissioner, Dahej Special Economic Zone, Dahej , to short close the Bulk Bills of Entry by foreclosing the said Bills of Entry in respect of quantities of goods and materials not cleared under the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and lying as unutilised balance.
Held: It transpires that the glitch in the way of consideration of petitioner's request for short closing the Bulk Bills of Entry and issuance of necessary certificate about uncleared quantities is procedural - The respondents have been insisting that the petitioner should follow certain procedures before its claim could be considered - It would be proper to require the petitioner to make an application before the competent authority of the respondents by making request regarding the prayers made in this petition - The grievance of the petitioner shall be looked into by the competent authority of the respondents on merits - It would be open for the petitioner to submit to the satisfaction of the competent authority the procedural formalities, if so required in law by the authorities - Respondents shall decide the same in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of such application - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 5.1, 5.2, 7]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
|
