Petitioner | Ajanta Industries |
Respondent | Commissioner, CGST & Another |
Decision By | Delhi High Court |
Date Of Order Or Judgement | 16- July- 2021 |
Citation No. | W.P. (C) No. : 6609 of 2021 2021 (7) GSTPanacea 10 HC Delhi |
Hon’ble Judge | Justice Manmohan Justice Navin Chawla |
Decision | In Favour of Revenue |
Petitioner has to Come Court with Clean Hands-Relief denied to petitioner on the ground that he has not approached the Court with clean hands, even when he satisfies all the ingredients of a statutory provision.
Petitioner has to Come Court with Clean Hands-Facts of the Case
Petitioner has to Come Court with Clean Hands-The petitioner submitted that he was unable to discharge its GST liability in third half of 2020-21 due to financial constraints. But, he duly filed all returns up to April and May, 2020 and is entitled for refund within 60 days from the date of filing RFD-01 in accordance with Sec. 54(7), and as per Rule 90.
It is mandatory to issue acknowledgement in RFD-02 within 15 days and if not done, all further proceedings would be without jurisdiction. Therefore, due to lapse of time, the respondent is bound to grant refund.
Argument Before Court
Petitioner has to Come Court with Clean Hands-A perusal of impugned refund rejection order reveals very serious findings of fake ITC.
The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as follows,
(i)Premise found locked during visit;
(ii)L2 supplier found non-existent at the declared business premises have issued fake and bogus invoices and passed on fake ITC;
(iii)Summons issued to L1 suppliers have been received back undelivered.
Delhi High Court Held
The court stated- “It is settled law that a petitioner who files a petition invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction has to come to Court with clean hand”.
The court also stated that, unlike commercial/appellate Jurisdiction, in a writ jurisdiction where relief may be denied to a petitioner on the ground that he has not approached the Court with clean hands, even when he satisfies all the ingredients of a statutory provision.
The court found that the findings which were mentioned in the impugned order like premises of the petitioner being found locked during inspection; the partner of the petitioner not responding to the Summons; and L1 & L2 suppliers having issued fake and bogus invoices and passed on fake Input Tax Credit, which has been dealt with leave alone challenged.
Thereby the court found it appropriate not to entertain the writ petition and, gave the petitioner the liberty to avail the appellate remedy in accordance with the law.
Download PDF
Ajanta-Industries
For Reference Visit
Delhi High Court