Huawei Telecommunications (INDIA)Company Private Limited vs. Excise And Taxation Commissioner And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 24, 2022, passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. This order rejected the petitioner's request for condonation of delay in receiving remittance in convertible foreign exchange against export of services, as per Rule 96A(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that there was no time limit for seeking condonation of delay in remittance and that the pandemic period should have been considered. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was merely a communication from the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner intimating the rejection, and no formal order had been passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner.

Held

The Court held that the communication dated May 24, 2022, was not a valid order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner in accordance with law. It was merely an intimation of a decision, based on a note by the Joint Commissioner (Legal) endorsed by the Commissioner, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing or passing a reasoned order considering the facts, circumstances, and issues involved. The Court found that no order as such had been passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to consider the petitioner's application afresh, afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, taking into consideration all grounds raised by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the communication dated May 24, 2022, constitutes a valid and reasoned order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in receipt of remittance for export of services under Rule 96A(1)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the communication was not a proper order and that the grounds raised by them, including the absence of a statutory time limit for remittance and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, were not considered. They argued that the authority should have been cognizant of the pandemic period. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, were unable to deny that no formal order had been passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. They produced the original record which indicated a note by the Joint Commissioner (Legal) endorsed by the Commissioner, but no independent order was passed.