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

Facts

The petitioner, Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 6, 2023, 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 is no statutory time limit for seeking condonation of delay in receiving export remittances and that the pandemic period should be considered. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was merely a communication from the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner intimating the rejection, and not an order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner himself.

Held

The Court held that the communication dated February 6, 2023, was not a valid order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner in accordance with the law. It was merely an intimation of rejection, based on notes within the department, without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing or considering the facts, circumstances, and issues involved. The Court found this action to be unsustainable. Consequently, the memo dated February 6, 2023, was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to consider the petitioner's application afresh, after providing the petitioner with due opportunity of hearing and taking into consideration all the grounds raised by the petitioner in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the communication dated February 6, 2023, constitutes a valid order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in receipt of export remittances under Rule 96A(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there is no time limit prescribed in the statute for seeking condonation of delay in the receipt of export remittances. They also argued that the authority should have considered the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner further argued that the impugned communication was not a proper order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and others, were unable to deny that no formal order had been passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. They produced the original record which showed notes by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Commissioner, indicating rejection of the application.