Chandni Crafts VS Union Of India

This writ petition challenges orders dated 29.10.2018 (Annex.2) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-A, Jodhpur, and the order dated 15.01.2020 (Annex.3) issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner sought refund of accumulated input tax credit for exported goods under a letter of undertaking, pursuant to Section 54(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act.

This writ petition challenges the orders dated 29.10.2018 (Annex.2) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-A, Jodhpur, and the order dated 15.01.2020 (Annex.3) by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner sought a refund of accumulated input tax credit amounting to Rs.6,07,553/- and Rs.8,78,605/- for July 2017 and August 2017, respectively, under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’), related to the export of goods via a letter of undertaking. The Assistant Commissioner initially issued a provisional refund order on 26.09.2018, partially granting the refund but rejecting claims for Integrated Goods & Service Tax (‘IGST’) and Central Goods & Service Tax (‘CGST’). Subsequently, final refund sanction/rejection orders were issued on 29.10.2018 (Annex.2), ultimately denying the petitioner’s claims.

This writ petition challenges orders dated 29.10.2018 (Annex.2) from the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-A, Jodhpur, and order dated 15.01.2020 (Annex.3) from the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), both of which denied the petitioner’s appeal for refund of accumulated input tax credit totaling Rs.6,07,553/- and Rs.8,78,605/- for July and August 2017 under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The Assistant Commissioner initially issued a provisional refund order on 26.09.2018, partially granting the refund while rejecting portions related to Integrated Goods & Service Tax (IGST) and Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST). Subsequent final orders on 29.10.2018 reiterated these rejections, prompting the petitioner to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the denial on 15.01.2020. The petitioner argues that these actions contravene Section 54(3) and Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, which mandate a hearing before any refund application can be rejected, asserting that such due process was not followed in this case.

This writ petition challenges the orders dated 29.10.2018 (Annex.2) by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-A, Jodhpur, and the order dated 15.01.2020 (Annex.3) by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). These orders denied the petitioner’s refund claims under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, totaling Rs.6,07,553/- and Rs.8,78,605/- for July and August 2017, respectively.

Initially, the Assistant Commissioner provisionally sanctioned a partial refund but rejected the petitioner’s claims for IGST and CGST. Subsequently, final orders were issued on 29.10.2018 (Annex.2), fully rejecting the petitioner’s claims. The petitioner, aggrieved by these decisions, appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejections in an order dated 15.01.2020 (Annex.3).

The petition argues that the rejection of refunds violated Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, which mandate a hearing before any refund application can be rejected. The petitioner contends that the authority failed to follow the procedural requirements, specifically the issuance of notices and opportunities for the petitioner to respond before making a final decision.

Despite the appellate authority finding in favor of the petitioner regarding procedural violations, it ultimately upheld the rejection of the refund claims based on the merits of the case, stating that natural justice was observed during the appeal proceedings.

This writ petition challenges orders dated 29.10.2018 (Annex.2) by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-A, Jodhpur, and 15.01.2020 (Annex.3) by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which rejected the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner sought refund of accumulated input tax credit under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, amounting to Rs.6,07,553/- and Rs.8,78,605/- for July and August 2017. The Assistant Commissioner partially sanctioned the refund but rejected the claims for Integrated Goods & Service Tax (IGST) and Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST). The subsequent orders on 29.10.2018 fully rejected the petitioner’s claims. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner appealed, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on 15.01.2020.

The petitioner argues that the rejection violated Section 54(3) and Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, asserting that proper hearing procedures were not followed as mandated by Rule 92(3). The appellate authority acknowledged procedural irregularities but upheld the rejection based on the merits of the case. Citing the precedent of World Home Textiles Inc v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals) & Anr. : 2020 SCC Online Mad 25916, the petitioner contends that the orders violate principles of natural justice and should be set aside.

In response, the respondents contend that the refund claim lacked merit, justifying the rejection by both authorities. Thus, they argue against any interference with the impugned orders.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: