rejected without recording any reasons
|
Case Title |
Colgate Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India |
|
Court |
Bombay High Court |
|
Honorable Judges |
Justice R.M Dhanuka & Justice S.M Modak |
|
Citation |
2022 (1) GSTPanacea 249 HC Bombay WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2021 |
|
Judgement Date |
25-January-2022 |
|
Council for Petitioner |
Mr.Jitendra Motwani |
|
Council for Respondent |
Mr.Jitendra B. Mishra |
|
In Favor Of |
Petitioner |
|
Section |
Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 |
The Bombay High Court,Bench of R.M Dhanuka & S.M Modak,JJ , held that the Order passed by the Respondent is in breach of the said provisions and deserves to be granted and set aside.
FACTS OF THE CASE
By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned the Order dated 15th June 2020 passed by the Respondent No.3 thereby rejecting the application for refund made by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has challenged the said impugned Order mainly on the ground that the Respondent No.3 was bound to record reasons in the Order while rejecting the application for refund of ITC in view of Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
rejected without recording any reasons
COURT HELD
A Perusal of the impugned Order indicates that the Respondent No.3 has rejected the application for refund without recording any reasons, though the same is mandatory under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In our view, the Order passed by the Respondent No.3 is in breach of the said provisions and deserves to be granted and set aside.
The Court accordingly pass the following Order:-
Impugned Order dated 15th June 2020 passed by the Respondent is quashed and set-aside.
Application for refund made by the Petitioner for the period July 2017 to March 2018 for the sum of Rs.4, 33, 03,066/- is restored to file before the Respondent.
The Order that would be passed by the Respondent No.3 shall be conveyed to the Petitioner within one week from the date of passing of the said Order. If refund application is allowed, the Respondent No.3 shall refund the amount due to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of passing of such Order. If the Order is adverse against the Petitioner, the Petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
rejected without recording any reasons
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
From the above case we can conclude that rejecting the application for refund OF ITC without recording any reasons by the revenue department is void and against the GST Provisions as the same is mandatory under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Download PDF:
Colgate Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd.
For Reference Visit: