Case Law Details
Tata Steel Bsl Ltd Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court)
Mr. S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties-Revenue submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, against the impugned order under Annexure-7. Therefore, it is submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it may avail the remedy of appeal and hence this writ petition may be dismissed as not maintainable.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative of appeal, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this writ petition requiring the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within a period of 15 days from today. If such appeal along with a copy of this order is filed within 15 days hence, the appellate authority shall entertain the same, waiving the period of delay, if any, in filing the appeal, and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal.
It would be open for the petitioner to agitate all the arguments, as raised in this petition, before the appellate authority. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner and it is for the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its own merit, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties by Video
Conferencing mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Tata Steel BSL Ltd. challenging the orders dated 10.08.2020 under Annexure-7 by which the application of the petitioner for refund in RFD-01 in respect of input tax credit (ITC) relating to export of goods and services, has been rejected by the Dy. Commissioner of CT & GST, Dhenkanal Circle-O.P. No.3.
3. Mr. J. Sahoo, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claimed ITC for the period April, 2018 to June, 2018 vide refund application in GST-RFD-01 along with all supporting documents before the opposite party no.3 for refund of unutilized ITC equivalent to turnover of export of goods to total adjusted turnover for the same period. The opposite party No.3, on receipt of application, issued acknowledgement in form GST-RFD-02 vide Annexure-2. The opposite party No.3 vide letter dated 18.6.2020 also called upon the petitioner to produce the books of account. In response to the said letter, petitioner submitted its reply on 23.06.2020 along with documents for consideration of the refund application. However, the opposite party No.3 without communicating any discrepancies to the petitioner in respect of application for refund as required under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules and without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file a fresh refund application after rectification of such discrepancies, if any, and even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, rejected the application.
4. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, which provides for reasons to be recorded in writing where the officer is satisfied that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, the officer shall issue a notice in Form GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring the applicant to furnish a reply in Form GST RFD-09 within fifteen days of the receipt of such notice. It is submitted that no such procedure has been followed by the opposite party No.3, which is illegal and unreasonable.
5. Mr. S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties-Revenue submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, against the impugned order under Annexure-7. Therefore, it is submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it may avail the remedy of appeal and hence this writ petition may be dismissed as not maintainable.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative of appeal, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this writ petition requiring the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within a period of 15 days from today. If such appeal along with a copy of this order is filed within 15 days hence, the appellate authority shall entertain the same, waiving the period of delay, if any, in filing the appeal, and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal.
7. It would be open for the petitioner to agitate all the arguments, as raised in this petition, before the appellate authority. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner and it is for the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its own merit, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of.
As pandemic situation is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
