Rungta Mines Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise

Heard Mr. K. Kurmi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari and Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocates. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: for setting aside the order in Appeal dated 03.2.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the appellate authority, i.e., the Respondent No.2, and for setting aside the order in Original dated 25.1.2019 (Annexure-2) passed by the adjudicating authority, i.e., the Respondent No. 3. The petitioner has brought forth this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the aforementioned orders, contending that both the orders suffer from serious legal and procedural infirmities that render them unsustainable. The petitioner argues that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the relevant facts and evidence presented during the proceedings, thereby leading to an erroneous conclusion and an unjust order. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that the appellate authority, while upholding the order of the adjudicating authority, did not adequately address the grounds of appeal and the substantial issues raised, thereby perpetuating the miscarriage of justice. The core of the petitioner’s argument revolves around the alleged procedural lapses and substantive errors committed by the respondents in the course of the adjudication and appellate proceedings. The petitioner submits that the order in Original dated 25.1.2019 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case. The petitioner contends that the adjudicating authority did not provide sufficient reasons or a cogent rationale for the conclusions reached, leading to an arbitrary and capricious decision. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the order in Appeal dated 03.2.2020 failed to rectify these deficiencies and instead, rubber-stamped the flawed findings of the adjudicating authority without a thorough and independent examination of the merits of the case. The petitioner has raised several legal and factual issues in the writ petition, emphasizing that both the orders under challenge are based on incorrect interpretations of the law and misappreciation of the facts. The petitioner contends that the respondents acted beyond their jurisdiction and failed to adhere to the statutory provisions and guidelines governing the adjudication and appellate processes. It is argued that the respondents, by their actions, have violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, including the right to a fair hearing and the right to equality before the law. In light of these contentions, the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned orders and to grant appropriate relief. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the orders dated 03.2.2020 and 25.1.2019, and to direct the respondents to reconsider the case in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The petitioner also seeks any other relief deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice. This writ petition highlights the petitioner’s grievances against the procedural and substantive irregularities allegedly committed by the respondents in the adjudication and appellate proceedings, and seeks judicial redressal to correct the alleged wrongs and to uphold the rule of law. Section 140 of CGST Act read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules, provides for the mechanism which inter alia envisages that the closing balance of CENVAT Credit available under the existing law as per the last return filed (ER-1 return) shall be carried forward to the new GST regime by filing declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 and thereupon, such transitional credit shall be credited to the Electronic Credit Ledger of the assessee maintained under CGST Act. It is submitted that under Section 140 (5) of the CGST Act, there is no requirement of claiming the credit in the ER-1 returns for the month of June, 2017 for obvious reasons that by the time invoices are received the limitation for filing ER-1 would have expired. Hence, in such case mere disclosure of the receipt of services in the books of accounts is enough. Section 141 of CGST Act deals with the transitional provision relating to job work which is not relevant in the present case. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Section 142 of CGST Act deals with miscellaneous transitional provisions which are not covered under Section 140 or Section 141 of the CGST Act. The case of the petitioner is covered under Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act which is the substantive provision which allows refund of CENVAT Credit in certain contingencies as transitional measures.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: