Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited VS Union of India

The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention from this Court. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. In this context, the petitioner is invoking the court’s jurisdiction to address grievances that likely involve the violation of constitutional or legal rights.

The petition details the circumstances and grounds upon which the petitioner is seeking relief. This includes an outline of the facts and events leading up to the filing of the petition, the specific rights allegedly infringed upon, and the legal basis for the claims made. The petitioner might be challenging actions or decisions by government authorities or other entities that are claimed to be unlawful or unconstitutional.

Additionally, the petition would typically specify the relief sought from the court. This could include orders to quash or set aside the impugned actions, directives to the respondents to perform certain duties, or any other appropriate orders to ensure justice. The petitioner would also provide evidence and legal arguments to support their case, demonstrating how their rights have been violated and why the court should grant the requested relief.

The respondents, usually the government or other public bodies, would be notified of the petition and given an opportunity to respond. The court would then examine the merits of the case, considering both the petitioner’s claims and the respondents’ defenses, before making a judgment.

In summary, the petitioner, through this writ petition under Article 226, is seeking the court’s intervention to address grievances involving potential violations of legal or constitutional rights, with the aim of obtaining judicial relief against the actions or decisions of the respondents.

The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial review and various orders from the Court. The key prayers and issues raised in the petition are as follows:

1. Quashing the Refund Rejection Order: The petitioner requests the Court to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any similar order, to review the records of the petitioner’s case. This case led to the passing of the Refund Rejection Order in Form RFD 06 dated January 5, 2021. The petitioner argues that this order is arbitrary, illegal, and constitutionally invalid, and thus should be quashed.

2. Challenging the Circular: The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari or any similar order to review and examine the Impugned Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated March 31, 2020. Specifically, the petitioner challenges Paragraph 3 of this circular, which denies refunds in cases where input and output supplies are the same. The petitioner claims this paragraph is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and is ultra vires Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

3. Mandamus for Refund: The petitioner requests a writ of Mandamus or any similar order directing the relevant authorities (Respondent No. 2 and 3, the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax) to grant a refund of the accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 27,02,26,876. This refund claim was filed by the petitioner under FORM-GST-RFD-01 dated September 29, 2020.

Brief Facts of the Case:

* The petitioner operates in the State of Rajasthan through its project office located at Unit No. 203, Reliable Tech Park, MIDC, Airoli, Navi Mumbai.

* The petitioner entered into a development contract, leading to transactions and subsequent tax filings that resulted in the disputed refund rejection.

In essence, the petitioner argues that the rejection of their refund claim and the specific provisions of the impugned circular are unlawful and unconstitutional. They seek judicial intervention to quash the refund rejection order and the relevant part of the circular while directing the authorities to process and grant the claimed refund of accumulated ITC.

The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking several judicial interventions concerning the rejection of a refund claim and the validity of a circular that allegedly restricts such claims. The main reliefs sought include the quashing of the Impugned Refund Rejection Order (Form RFD 06 dated 05.01.2021) and the examination and invalidation of a Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020. The petitioner also requests a mandamus to compel the authorities to refund the accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 27,02,26,876 as per their GST refund application filed on 29.09.2020.

To understand the context, the petitioner, based in Rajasthan, operates through its project office in Navi Mumbai. They have a development contract with Vedanta Limited for petroleum operations in Rajasthan Block RJ-ON-90/1. Under this contract, the petitioner is responsible for procuring necessary goods and equipment from domestic and international sources. The petitioner, having registered under the CGST/RGST Acts, claims to have been compliant with tax filings and payments.

The crux of the issue lies in a Notification No. 3/2017-CGST dated 28.06.2017, which set a GST rate of 5% for specified operations related to the oil and gas industry. To avail this concessional rate, a certificate from the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons was required to confirm the necessity of the goods for petroleum operations. The petitioner asserts they met all conditions, including obtaining this certificate.

Despite meeting these conditions, the petitioner’s refund claim was rejected, which they argue was arbitrary and unlawful, violating Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 300A (right to property) of the Constitution. They contend that the rejection was also ultra vires to Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs GST refunds. The petitioner’s plea aims to overturn this decision, ensure compliance with the law, and recover the claimed ITC amount, which they assert is crucial for their financial operations and adherence to tax obligations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: