Gujarat State Petronet Limited VS Union Of India

In this petition, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. The primary relief sought is the issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, to quash an impugned order dated May 1, 2019, issued by respondent no. 3. The petitioner argues that this order wrongfully dismissed their appeal on the grounds of being filed beyond the limitation period. This dismissal, according to the petitioner, violates Section 107 of the CGST Act and Rule 108 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner requests that the case be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a decision based on the merits of the case. Learned Standing Counsel Shri Nirzar Desai waives service of the rule on behalf of the respondents.

The petitioner, an undertaking of the Government of Gujarat engaged in gas transportation and registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), has filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition seeks to challenge the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the respondent no.3, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the grounds of being beyond the limitation period. The petitioner claims this decision violates section 107 of the CGST Act and rule 108 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner requests the following reliefs:

1. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide it on its merits.

2. Any other orders in favor of the petitioner, including the costs of this petition, as deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned Standing Counsel Shri Nirzar Desai waived the service of the rule on behalf of the respondents.

In the case brought before the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner, an undertaking of the Government of Gujarat engaged in the transportation of gas through pipelines, has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated May 1, 2019, issued by the respondent No. 3, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal on grounds of being beyond the limitation period as per Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, read with Rule 108 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner has requested the Court to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a decision on the merits of the case and also seeks any other appropriate orders, including costs of the petition.

Background Facts:

1. Petitioner’s Identity: The petitioner is a government entity registered under the CGST Act, engaged in gas transportation.

2. Refund Application: On March 21, 2018, the petitioner filed a refund application for Rs. 2,66,55,266/- of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on supplies to the Special Economic Zone (SEZ).

3. Deficiency Memo: The adjudicating authority issued a deficiency memo on April 11, 2018, instructing the petitioner to submit endorsed invoices for supplies made to ONGC Petro Additions Limited (OPAL). Despite continuous reminders, the SEZ authority did not endorse the invoices for IGST amounting to Rs. 41,59,625/- nor confirmed any time frame for the endorsement.

4. Show Cause Notice: On July 5, 2018, the respondent issued a show cause notice for the rejection of the refund amount due to non-submission of invoices related to supplies made to OPAL.

5. Petitioner’s Reply: The petitioner responded on July 6, 2018, explaining their position regarding the non-endorsed invoices and requested the adjudicating authority to process the refund for the remaining amount while the endorsement issue was resolved.

The petitioner’s plea is grounded on the assertion that the rejection of their appeal based on the limitation period was erroneous and sought judicial intervention to ensure that their case is heard and decided on its merits.

In the notice, it was highlighted that the refund issue was related to the supply made to OPAL, for which invoices had not been endorsed by the SEZ authority despite multiple reminders.

Summary:

1. Refund Application and Initial Sanction:

* Following the refund application, the adjudicating authority approved a refund amounting to Rs. 2,24,95,641 on August 2, 2019.

* However, a portion of the refund amounting to Rs. 41,59,625 was deemed inadmissible due to the non-submission of the endorsed invoices for the supplies made to OPAL.

2. Endorsed Invoices Received:

* On August 2, 2018, the petitioner received the endorsed copies of the invoices.

* The petitioner immediately approached the adjudicating authority to have these endorsed copies of invoices taken into account.

3. Adjudicating Authority’s Response:

* The adjudicating authority refused to consider the newly submitted documents, stating that the refund order had already been signed and, as a result, no amendments could be made to it.

This summary encapsulates the key points regarding the refund process and the issues encountered with the submission and acceptance of the endorsed invoices.

The refund in question relates to the supplies made to OPAL, for which the petitioner’s invoices were not endorsed by the SEZ authority despite numerous reminders. On August 2, 2019, the adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund amounting to Rs. 2,24,95,641/-. However, a portion of the refund, totaling Rs. 41,59,625/-, was deemed inadmissible due to the non-submission of endorsed invoices for the supplies made to OPAL.

Subsequently, on August 2, 2018, the petitioner received the endorsed copies of the invoices and promptly submitted these to the adjudicating authority. Despite this, the authority refused to consider the documents, stating that the refund order had already been finalized and could not be amended.

Following this, the petitioner repeatedly approached the adjudicating authority to upload the order on the GST portal, but technical issues prevented this from happening. The adjudicating authority advised the petitioner to file a new refund application and generate a fresh application reference number. However, the petitioner was unable to do so, leading to further complications in the refund process.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: