Case Law Details

Case Name : Saraf Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) No. 4338 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/07/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (5740) Delhi High Court (1566)

Saraf Industries Through Sole Prop Sh Akhil Saraf Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)

We are not inclined to entertain the present petition when the petitioner has an equally alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST. The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek its remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It is made clear that delay alone will not be a ground for the Appellate Authority to reject the appeal that may be preferred by the petitioner on merits. The petitioner is permitted to rely on the interim order dated 21.01.2020, passed by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.627/2020, which shall be duly taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority and a speaking order shall be passed thereafter.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for setting aside an order dated 20.09.2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner Narela, GST, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for refund under Section 54 of the Central GST Act, 2017, has been rejected.

2. At the outset, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent states that the opening page of the impugned order itself makes it abundantly clear that the said order is appealable before the Additional Commissioner, GST and instead of exhausting the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, it has directly rushed to this court, which is impermissible.

3. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner in a batch of petitions seeking refund orders and no specific order on the merits of the petitioner’s has been passed while rejecting its refund application. Learned counsel also seeks to rely on an interim order dated 21.01.2020, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in W. P. (C) No. 627/2020 entitled M/s Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI and Ors. to urge that the Division Bench has expressed a view which goes in favour of the petitioner.

4. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition when the petitioner has an equally alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST. The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek its remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It is made clear that delay alone will not be a ground for the Appellate Authority to reject the appeal that may be preferred by the petitioner on merits. The petitioner is permitted to rely on the interim order dated 21.01.2020, passed by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.627/2020, which shall be duly taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority and a speaking order shall be passed thereafter.

5. The present petition is disposed of.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *