Priyadarshini Filaments Private Limited VS Union Of India

The petitioner seeks relief through a writ of mandamus to challenge and invalidate Order-In-Appeal No. MYS-YCS-ADC/JC(A)/-33-19-20-GST, dated 11.02.2020/14.02.2020, as outlined in Annexure-C. There are three main prayers in the petition:

1. Invalidation of Order-In-Appeal: The petitioner requests the court to issue a writ of mandamus to set aside Order-In-Appeal No. MYS-YCS-ADC/JC(A)/-33-19-20-GST, dated 11.02.2020/14.02.2020, on grounds of it being unlawful.

2. Refund with Interest: Additionally, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for the court to overturn the same Order-In-Appeal and to direct the sanctioning of a refund, presumably related to goods and services tax (GST), along with interest.

3. Legality of Notification No. 20/2018-CT (Rate): The petitioner asks for a writ of mandamus to declare that the provisions in Notification No. 20/2018-CT (Rate), specifically those concerning the lapsing of credit and the cut-off date for refund as detailed in Annexure-J, lack legal authority.

These requests are based on the contention that the Order-In-Appeal and the stipulations in Notification No. 20/2018-CT (Rate) are not in accordance with the law, and therefore, the court is urged to intervene through the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

The petitioner in this legal case seeks relief through a writ of mandamus, challenging the validity of Order-In-Appeal No. MYS-YCS-ADC/JC (A)/-33-19-20-GST, dated 11.02.2020 / 14.02.2020, as issued in Annexure-C. They contend that the order is unlawful and should be set aside. Additionally, they request another writ of mandamus to overturn the same order and sanction a refund with interest. Furthermore, they challenge the legality of the provisions regarding the lapse of credit and cut-off date for refund under Notification No. 20/2018-CT (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 in Annexure-J, asserting these are without lawful authority.

The petitioner initially filed a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, on 03.04.2019. This application was subsequently rejected by the respondents through an order dated 21.08.2019. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Authority, which also ruled against them on 11.02.2020. Consequently, feeling aggrieved by both the adjudicating authority’s decision and the appellate order, the petitioner has approached the court with the current petition seeking appropriate legal remedies.

During proceedings, the court has heard arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel, and reviewed the relevant documents submitted as part of the case record. The petitioner’s counsel has highlighted procedural flaws and substantive legal issues concerning the rejection of the refund application and subsequent dismissal of their appeal.

In summary, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to quash the impugned orders, issue directives for refund with interest, and declare certain provisions as lacking legal authority. They urge the court to grant any other relief it deems fit in the interest of justice based on the circumstances of the case. The matter now rests with the court to adjudicate upon the merits of the petitioner’s claims and the legality of the actions taken by the authorities involved.

the petitioner has filed a petition seeking relief through a writ of mandamus regarding an order issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitioner originally applied for a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, on April 3, 2019. Subsequently, their application was rejected by the authorities on August 21, 2019. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner pursued an appeal which was also dismissed on February 11, 2020.

In response, the petitioner has approached the court seeking several reliefs. Firstly, they request the court to issue a writ of mandamus to set aside the Order-In-Appeal No. MYS-YCS-ADC / JC (A) / -33-19-20-GST, dated February 11 or 14, 2020, arguing that it is legally flawed. Secondly, the petitioner seeks another writ of mandamus to overturn the same Order-In-Appeal and to authorize the refund along with interest. Additionally, they urge the court to declare that certain provisions within Notification No. 20/2018-CT (Rate), specifically regarding the lapsing of credit and refund cutoff dates, lack legal authority.

During the court proceedings, both the petitioner’s and respondent’s counsels presented their arguments, and the court examined the available records. The petitioner’s counsel reiterated their contentions from the petition and referenced supporting documents.

The matter before the court revolves around the legality and procedural correctness of the refund denial under GST regulations. The petitioner contends that the decisions of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority were unjust and seeks judicial intervention to rectify these decisions. They appeal for relief in the form of writs of mandamus to annul the impugned orders and potentially grant other suitable remedies as deemed just by the court.

The case underscores issues of statutory interpretation and procedural fairness under GST law, highlighting the complexities and challenges inherent in seeking tax refunds under this regulatory framework.

arguments presented, the petitioner seeks judicial relief through a writ petition concerning a refund claim under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The case revolves around an application for refund submitted on 3rd April 2019, which was initially rejected by the respondents via an order dated 21st August 2019. Subsequently, an appeal to the Appellate Authority also met dismissal through an order dated 11th February 2020. Dissatisfied with these decisions, the petitioner has approached the court seeking redressal.

In the petition, the petitioner contends that the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the Appellate Authority are legally flawed and should be set aside. Specifically, they argue that the stipulation within Notification No. 20/2018-CT (Rate) dated 26th July 2018, which mandates the lapsing of accumulated input tax credit beyond a specified period, is without legal authority. The petitioner further asserts that they have complied with all necessary requirements for the refund claim, including the submission of relevant documents such as a summary of stock as of 31st July 2018, and certification by a Chartered Accountant regarding the clearance of goods.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: