Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Vs Union Of India

The petitioner in this case is challenging an order dated 22nd November 2019 issued by respondent No. 5, as detailed in Annexure P/1 attached to the writ petition. The order in question was passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who denied the petitioner’s claim for a tax refund. The crux of the petitioner’s grievance lies in the rejection of their application for refund of taxes. This rejection forms the basis of the petitioner’s legal challenge before the court.

The petitioner contends that the denial of the tax refund claim was unjust and erroneous. They argue that they are entitled to the refund based on valid grounds which were purportedly overlooked or misinterpreted by the respondents. The petitioner asserts that all necessary conditions and requirements for the refund were duly fulfilled, and thus, the denial of their claim is not in accordance with the provisions of law.

Moreover, the petitioner alleges procedural irregularities and violations of natural justice during the adjudication of their refund claim. They claim that their submissions and evidence supporting the refund request were not adequately considered or appreciated by the respondents before making the decision to reject the claim.

In seeking relief, the petitioner requests the court to quash the impugned order dated 22nd November 2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 5. Additionally, they seek an order directing the respondents to reconsider their application for tax refund in accordance with the law and after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case.

The case is primarily concerned with issues of administrative law, procedural fairness, and the correct interpretation and application of tax refund provisions under the relevant statutes. The petitioner’s plea underscores their contention that the actions of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were arbitrary, unjust, and warrant intervention by the judiciary to rectify the alleged errors and to ensure justice is served.

petitioner’s claim for tax refund was subsequently rejected by respondents 4 and 5 through an order dated 22nd November 2019, as detailed in Annexure P/1 of the writ petition. The petitioner, a company registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regularly filed tax returns but claimed to have borne the burden of taxes without passing them on to any other party. Consequently, the petitioner applied for a refund of excess taxes paid in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

In response, the revenue department issued a deficiency memo on 14th September 2019, notifying the petitioner of certain deficiencies that needed rectification within a specified timeframe. Due to the petitioner’s alleged failure to rectify these deficiencies within the stipulated period, the claim for tax refund was denied by respondents 4 and 5.

The petitioner has approached the court seeking to challenge the aforementioned order. The crux of the petitioner’s case rests on the contention that they fulfilled all statutory obligations and were entitled to the refund under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They argue that the rejection of their refund claim was unjustified, as they had not transferred the tax burden to any other entity and had complied with all procedural requirements.

The petitioner seeks relief from the court to overturn the order dated 22nd November 2019 and to grant them the refund of excess taxes paid in accordance with the law. The case revolves around interpretation of tax laws, procedural compliance, and entitlement to refunds under the GST regime, highlighting the administrative actions of respondents 4 and 5 as being contrary to statutory provisions and prejudicial to the petitioner’s rights.

The petitioner is challenging an order dated 22nd November 2019 issued by respondent No. 5, as detailed in Annexure P/1 of the writ petition, which denied the petitioner’s claim for a tax refund. The petitioner, a company registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regularly filed returns but bore the burden of the tax without passing it on to others. Consequently, the petitioner applied for a refund of excess tax paid in Madhya Pradesh.

However, the revenue department issued a deficiency memo on 14th September 2019, requiring the petitioner to rectify certain deficiencies within a specified timeframe. Due to the petitioner’s failure to rectify these deficiencies within the stipulated period, their refund application dated 23rd August 2019 was rejected by the impugned order dated 22nd November 2019 (Annexure P/1).

In response to proceedings in this matter, the Court heard arguments from both sides on 21st March 2022. Following these proceedings, the Court directed the revenue’s counsel to submit an affidavit from a gazetted officer confirming whether the deficiency memo had been served on the petitioner. In compliance with this directive, the respondents filed a covering memo dated 26th April 2022 along with a communication dated 31st March 2022 addressed to the Post Master at the Head Post Office, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. This communication requested the supply of the acknowledgment receipt for the post through which the deficiency memo was purportedly sent to the petitioner. However, the Post Office responded that records related to this consignment were unavailable.

Thus, the petitioner’s challenge to the order of rejection is centered on the contention that the deficiency memo was not properly served, raising procedural irregularities and questioning the completeness of the administrative process leading to the denial of their refund claim. The case appears poised for further consideration of these procedural aspects to determine whether the rejection of the petitioner’s refund claim was validly executed in accordance with applicable laws and procedures.

days and secondly, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to rectify the alleged deficiencies before rejecting the refund claim. The petitioner’s company, registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regularly filed returns but had to bear the burden of the tax without passing it on to any other party. Consequently, seeking to reclaim excess tax paid in Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner submitted a refund application on 23.08.2019.

However, the revenue department issued a deficiency memo on 14.09.2019, stipulating that the petitioner rectify the noted deficiencies within a specified period. Despite efforts, the petitioner failed to rectify these deficiencies within the allotted time frame. Subsequently, on 22.11.2019, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 rejected the petitioner’s refund application through an order (Annexure P/1), citing the unresolved deficiencies.

Challenging this decision, the petitioner contended that the rejection order was unlawful because it did not afford them the mandated opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. The petitioner’s counsel argued that under Rule 90 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, any deficiencies must be communicated within 15 days of the refund application, and the applicant must be given an opportunity to rectify these deficiencies. In this case, the deficiencies were not communicated within the statutory period, and subsequently, no opportunity was provided to rectify them.

The matter came before the court on 21.03.2022, whereupon the court directed the revenue’s counsel to substantiate whether the deficiency memo had been served to the petitioner. Respondent officials filed a covering memo on 26.04.2022, along with a communication to the Post Master, seeking acknowledgment of delivery of the deficiency memo sent to the petitioner on 31.03.2022. However, the Post Master informed the respondents that the records related to the consignment were unavailable.

In summary, the petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of their refund claim on the grounds that they were not given an opportunity to rectify deficiencies within the prescribed time frame as per GST rules. The petitioner asserts that the rejection order is legally flawed and requests the court to review and set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2019.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: