L And T Thales Technology Services Private Limited VS Commissioner of GST

the domain of taxation and refund claims, it is pertinent to delve into the specifics of the orders passed by the second respondent, as well as the grounds for challenging these orders in the writ petitions.

In W.P.No.27931 of 2019, the petitioner had sought a refund for a specific period, which was partly rejected by the second respondent’s order dated 31.03.2019. The grounds for partial rejection were based on the interpretation of tax liabilities and compliance with procedural formalities. The petitioner contends that the rejection was unjustified, asserting that all requisite conditions for a refund were fulfilled, and any discrepancies cited were either rectifiable or non-material to the claim.

On the other hand, in W.P.No.27932 of 2019, the petitioner’s refund claim for a different period was entirely rejected by the order dated 20.02.2019. This comprehensive rejection was grounded on a more extensive scrutiny of the petitioner’s compliance with the tax statutes and guidelines. The petitioner challenges this decision on the basis that the rejection was premised on incorrect assessments and a misunderstanding of the tax regulations applicable to their case.

Both writ petitions are thus centered on the interpretation and application of tax laws regarding the eligibility for refunds. The petitioner argues that the second respondent’s orders failed to consider the full scope of evidence and submissions presented, thereby resulting in erroneous decisions. The petitioner seeks a review and reversal of these orders, asserting their right to the refunds as per the existing tax laws and guidelines.

Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior standing counsel, has taken notice for the respondents, indicating that the legal arguments and interpretations of the tax laws will be rigorously defended in response to the claims made in these writ petitions. The court will need to consider whether the second respondent’s application of tax law was correct and whether the petitioner’s claims were unjustly denied or partially rejected.

The resolution of these writ petitions will hinge on detailed legal analysis, including the interpretation of applicable tax provisions, procedural adherence by the petitioner, and the adequacy of the evidence submitted in support of the refund claims. The final judgment will need to address the validity of the grounds for rejection and the petitioner’s compliance with all necessary conditions for the refunds sought.

In the matter at hand, two writ petitions, W.P.No.27931 of 2019 and W.P.No.27932 of 2019, have been filed challenging the orders in original Nos.39/2019 and 13/2019, respectively, issued by the second respondent. These orders, dated March 31, 2019, and February 20, 2019, respectively, address the refund claims submitted by the petitioner for different periods, leading to distinct adjudications on these claims.

In W.P.No.27931 of 2019, the order partly rejects the refund claim, whereas in W.P.No.27932 of 2019, the entire refund claim is rejected. Both orders emanate from the same petitioner, thereby highlighting the continuity and complexity of the refund claims in question.

The proceedings have been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties, facilitated by Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the respondents. The crux of the petitions revolves around the contention that the orders in question were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Mr. Raghavan Ramabadran, the petitioner’s counsel, argues that the second respondent failed to issue a show cause notice or provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the impugned orders. This procedural lapse, according to the petitioner’s counsel, invalidates the orders, making them unsustainable on the grounds of natural justice. To support this argument, the petitioner’s counsel referenced two precedents: Vasta Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2018 (360) E.L.T. 234) and Sri Gayathri Cashews Vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST and C.Ex., Cuddalore (2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 408), which underscore the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in such proceedings.

Therefore, the primary issue under consideration is whether the absence of a show cause notice and a personal hearing rendered the impugned orders legally deficient, necessitating intervention by the Court. The Court’s decision will hinge on interpreting whether the procedural deficiencies as argued by the petitioner indeed compromised the fairness of the adjudicatory process.

In the presented case, two writ petitions (W.P.No.27931 of 2019 and W.P.No.27932 of 2019) were filed to challenge the orders in original Nos.39/2019 and 13/2019, dated March 31, 2019, and February 20, 2019, respectively, issued by the second respondent. The petitioner had filed refund claims for two different periods, resulting in the issuance of the two distinct orders in question.

In W.P.No.27931 of 2019, the order partly rejected the refund claim, while in W.P.No.27932 of 2019, the entire refund claim was rejected. Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, took notice of the petitions. Given the narrow scope of the issue, with the consent of both parties, the writ petitions were taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

Despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy before the concerned Appellate Authority, the petitioner, represented by Mr. Raghavan Ramabadran, contended that these writ petitions were maintainable before the Court because the impugned orders were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the second respondent had not issued a show cause notice or provided an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the orders. To support this claim, the petitioner’s counsel cited decisions from this Court in cases like Vasta Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, and Sri Gayathri Cashews Vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST and C.Ex., Cuddalore.

On the other hand, Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, argued that the refund applications were considered after seeking clarifications from the petitioner through a communication dated August 6, 2018. Based on the information received, the second respondent had appropriately assessed the merits of the claim and passed the orders. However, she acknowledged that the petitioner had not been granted a personal hearing, as raised in the petition. She suggested that the impugned orders could be treated as show cause notices, allowing the petitioner to respond, thereby enabling the second respondent to issue fresh orders on the merits of the case and in accordance with legal requirements.

This agreement from the respondents’ counsel indicated a willingness to rectify the procedural oversight and ensure that the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing was upheld. The Court was then positioned to decide whether to allow the petitioner to respond to the show cause notices and enable a new assessment of the refund claims.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: