Radiant Enterprises Private Limited VS Joint Commissioner, CGST

This intra-Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order dated 20th December, 2022 issued by the learned Single Bench in W.P.A. No.1366 of 2022. The writ petition originally contested an order by the appellate authority under the CGST Act, dated 31st March, 2021, which was subsequently dismissed by the Single Bench.

Upon review of the Single Bench’s order, it is observed that the learned judge cited paragraph 7 of the appellate authority’s order and concluded that there were adequate reasons provided therein, thus declining to intervene in the matter. However, the appellate Court did not independently assess or substantiate how it determined the adequacy and correctness of the reasons stated by the appellate authority.

granted a partial refund which was subsequently challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, in its decision dated 31st March, 2021, addressed issues not raised before the original authority, leading to the writ petitioners filing a writ petition against this decision. The learned Single Bench, in its order dated 20th December, 2022, declined to interfere with the appellate authority’s decision, citing paragraph 7 of its order and finding the reasons therein adequate. However, the appellants contested that the appellate authority’s reasons lacked independent scrutiny by the writ Court. This scrutiny is pivotal as the issue was introduced by the appellate authority suo motu, diverging from the original case presented to the authority.

This intra-Court appeal challenges the December 20, 2022 order of the learned Single Bench in W.P.A. No.1366 of 2022, which dismissed a writ petition contesting a CGST Act appellate authority’s March 31, 2021 decision. The Single Bench, citing the appellate authority’s paragraph 7, declined intervention without offering an independent assessment of the authority’s rationale. Crucially, the petitioners contested a matter not raised before the original authority, initiated by the appellate authority suo motu, resulting in an adverse decision. The case originates from a refund application under CGST Act, 2017 section 54, initially rejected on November 13, 2019, with reasoning emphasizing tax payment by M/s. Eveready to the government, not the claimant.

the writ petitioners challenge an appellate authority’s order under the CGST Act dismissing their appeal against a decision made on March 31, 2021. The single bench, in an order dated December 20, 2022, cited the appellate authority’s reasoning in paragraph 7, opting not to overturn it. However, it failed to provide an independent assessment of why the appellate authority’s rationale was deemed valid. This omission is critical as the petitioners had not initially contested this aspect before the original authority, which was introduced by the appellate authority suo motu, resulting in an adverse decision against them.

The dispute arose from a refund application filed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Initially rejected by the original authority on November 13, 2019, the claim was denied on the grounds that the tax was paid to the government by M/s. Eveready, not by the claimants themselves, thereby rendering them ineligible to apply for relief.

In response, the appellants lodged a statutory appeal challenging this decision. Their appeal cited various precedents to argue their entitlement as service recipients to seek a refund, as outlined in the grounds of appeal submitted with their stay petition.

Sure, this intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioners challenges the order dated 20th December, 2022, issued by the learned Single Bench in W.P.A. No.1366 of 2022. The writ petition was originally filed to contest an order issued on 31st March, 2021 by the appellate authority under the provisions of the CGST Act. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, citing paragraph 7 of the appellate authority’s order and declining interference based on the reasons provided therein. However, the Single Bench did not independently assess the validity of these reasons.

Central to this appeal is the contention that the appellate authority introduced a new issue not raised before the original authority, concerning the entity liable for tax payment, which formed the basis for dismissing the appellants’ claim. The appellants argue that this issue was raised suo motu by the appellate authority, resulting in an adverse decision against them.

The dispute arose from a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Initially, the original authority rejected the claim on 13th November, 2019, on the grounds that the tax had been paid to the government by M/s. Eveready, not by the appellants themselves. This rejection was based solely on the interpretation that only the party directly paying the tax could seek a refund.

In response, the appellants filed a statutory appeal challenging this interpretation before the appellate authority. They argued that as the service recipients bearing the tax burden, they were entitled to seek the refund. Supporting their argument, they cited various decisions from tribunals and High Courts across the country.

The present appeal seeks to overturn the Single Bench’s decision and establish the appellants’ right to claim a refund under Section 54, despite not directly paying the tax to the government. The case hinges on whether the appellate authority’s introduction of a new issue was justified and whether the Single Bench adequately reviewed this decision.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: