Commissioner, Central CGST VS Haldia Petrochemicals Limited

The appeal in question originates from a revenue authority and is being reviewed within the same judicial body. The appeal challenges a specific judgment and order that was issued on June 30, 2022. This indicates that the revenue authority is not satisfied with the decision made on that date and is seeking a re-evaluation or reversal of the judgment within the same court system. The intra-Court appeal suggests an internal process where a higher bench or a different set of judges within the same court is requested to re-examine the case and the decision made by their colleagues. This procedural step is an essential part of the judicial system, allowing for checks and balances and ensuring that the decisions are thoroughly vetted for fairness and legal correctness.

In W.P.A. 4249 of 2022, the appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition, specifically the Commissionerate, Central CGST and CX, Haldia Commissionerate. The first respondent had previously filed a writ petition seeking several reliefs: the cancellation of letters dated 17th February, 2022, and 18th June, 2014; a writ of mandamus to direct the appellants to provide a copy of the order in original dated 17th October, 2012; and other associated reliefs. The respondent/writ petitioner’s case before the learned writ Court was that the order of adjudication dated 17th October, 2012, had not been served on them, which consequently led to the attachment of the bank account and recovery actions.

In W.P.A. 4249 of 2022, the respondents in the writ petition, namely the Commissionerate, Central CGST and CX, Haldia Commissionerate, filed an appeal. Respondent no. 1 sought a writ petition for the cancellation of letters dated 17th February 2022 and 18th June 2014, issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellants to provide a copy of the original order dated 17th October 2012, and other related reliefs. The respondent/writ petitioner claimed before the writ Court that the adjudication order dated 17th October 2012 was not served on them, rendering the attachment of the bank account and recovery notices from 2014 invalid, along with the threat in the letter dated 17th February 2022. The appellants/department submitted an affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition, including a copy of the original order dated 17th October 2012, which led to the respondents appealing before the tribunal after making the mandatory pre-deposit.

The appeal in W.P.A. 4249 of 2022 was filed by the Commissionerate, Central CGST and CX, Haldia Commissionerate, challenging a writ petition by respondent no. 1, who sought cancellation of letters dated 17th February 2022 and 18th June 2014, issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellants to provide a copy of the original order dated 17th October 2012, and other related reliefs. The respondent’s case before the writ court was that the adjudication order dated 17th October 2012 was never served, rendering subsequent bank account attachment and recovery notices from 2014 invalid, and the threat made in the letter dated 17th February 2022 unsustainable. The appellants/department submitted an affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition, including a copy of the original order dated 17th October 2012. The respondents subsequently appealed to the tribunal after making the mandatory pre-deposit. The writ court quashed the bank account attachment order and directed the refund of the money recovered through the bank attachment.

During proceedings, a senior advocate representing the respondent or writ petitioner argued that despite the revenue refunding certain amounts previously recovered via bank attachment, approximately Rs. 4.75 crores remains held by the department. The advocate pointed out that an adjustment had been made against the amount refundable to the respondent, which the respondent has challenged through a statutory appeal before the first appellate authority. The core issue revolves around the disputed amount still retained by the department despite initial refunds made to the respondent.

In a recent legal case, a senior advocate representing the respondent/writ petitioner argued that despite the amount due for refund, an adjustment had been made, prompting the respondent to challenge this decision through a statutory appeal before the first appellate authority. The dispute arose from the fact that while the revenue had refunded certain amounts recovered via bank attachment, approximately Rs. 4.75 crores still remained with the department.

Upon examining the facts of the case, the court found justification in the order and directives issued by the writ court. This decision was supported by the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which governs the service of decisions, orders, summons, and notices under the Act. Specifically, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 37C stipulates various methods of service, including tendering, sending via speed post with acknowledgment, or by an approved courier under the Central Board of Excise and Customs. These legal provisions underscored the validity of the writ court’s decision in the matter.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: