Manoj Handlooms Pvt Ltd VS Union of India

In the matter before the court, the petitioner was represented by Sri Aditya Gupta, while the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) authority was represented by Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, and the UPGST (Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax) authority was represented by Sri V.K. Pandey.

The proceedings involved an in-depth hearing of arguments from all three legal counsels. Sri Aditya Gupta, representing the petitioner, presented the case’s core arguments and sought relief or redressal for the petitioner. His presentation aimed to demonstrate that the petitioner had been wronged or faced an injustice that required the court’s intervention.

Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, on behalf of the CGST authority, countered the petitioner’s arguments, providing the court with justifications and legal backing for the actions or decisions taken by the CGST. He aimed to prove that the CGST authority had acted within the scope of their legal mandate and that their actions were justified under the prevailing laws and regulations.

Similarly, Sri V.K. Pandey, representing the UPGST authority, defended the actions or decisions of the UPGST. His arguments paralleled those of Sri Awasthi, focusing on upholding the legality and appropriateness of the UPGST’s conduct in the matter at hand.

Throughout the hearing, the learned counsels articulated their points with references to relevant laws, precedents, and factual clarifications. The court was presented with a comprehensive overview of the positions held by both the petitioner and the respondents (CGST and UPGST authorities).

The detailed hearing aimed to provide the court with all necessary information to make an informed decision on the case, taking into consideration the arguments, evidence, and legal interpretations presented by the learned counsels.

In the present case, the petitioner seeks the quashing of orders dated 26.02.2021, 01.04.2021, and 15.05.2021, along with the notice issued in Form GST-RFD-08 on 17.07.2021. Representing the petitioner is Sri Aditya Gupta, while Sri Dhananjay Awasthi and Sri V.K. Pandey appear for the CGST and UPGST authorities, respectively.

The dispute arises from a series of decisions following an appeal made by the petitioner. On 08.01.2021, the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-II, Commercial Tax, Jhansi, ruled in favor of the petitioner. This ruling allowed the assessee’s appeal (No. AD090720003045L/13-07-2020) and overturned the earlier order (No. 86 dated 11.07.2019) issued by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Jhansi. The appeal authority’s decision mandated the refund of the entire amount deposited by the petitioner under the order dated 11.07.2019.

The petitioner now challenges the subsequent orders and notice, contending that they are inconsistent with the appeal authority’s ruling that had favored the petitioner and ordered a refund.

Heard Sri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the CGST, and Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the UPGST authority.

The present petition seeks to quash the orders dated 26.02.2021, 01.04.2021, and 15.05.2021, as well as the notice issued on Form GST-RFD-08 dated 17.07.2021.

Undisputedly, an order dated 08.01.2021 was passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-II, Commercial Tax, Jhansi. This appeal authority allowed the assessee’s Appeal No. AD090720003045L/13-07-2020, set aside order no. 86 dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Jhansi, and directed a refund of the entire amount deposited by the petitioner/assessee under the order dated 11.07.2019.

Further, it is undisputed that the appeal authority’s order dated 08.01.2021 has attained finality.

In light of the above background, the petitioner made his first application for a refund of Rs. 15 lakhs deposited in compliance with the order dated 11.07.2019. This application was filed on 05.02.2021, and an acknowledgement on Form GST-RFD-02 was issued to the petitioner through the GST System Portal.

Relying on Rule 90(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, it has been submitted that the acknowledgement on Form GST-RFD-02 may arise only in the event of the refund application being complete in all respects.

The petitioner contends that once the application for refund was acknowledged as proper and complete, as indicated by the issuance of Form GST-RFD-02, the respondent authority had no grounds to pass the impugned order dated 26.02.2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the acknowledgment on Form GST-RFD-02 signifies that the application had undergone due scrutiny and met all necessary requirements. Therefore, any subsequent action or order by the respondent authority contradicts the initial acknowledgment of the application’s validity and completeness. This action by the respondent authority is argued to be unjustified and beyond their jurisdiction once the formal acknowledgment of the application was given.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: