Hays Business Solutions PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Hays Business Solutions Private Limited, sought a writ of certiorari to quash an Order-in-Original dated August 26, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Division East-II, GST & CX, Gurugram. This order rejected the petitioner's refund claims for the period March 2012 to June 2017. The petitioner also prayed for directions to release an amount of Rs. 2,96,43,782/- along with interest. The matter had been pending before the High Court since November 2022. The respondents filed a formal response, and the case was argued at length.
Held
The Court noted that the respondents' counsel fairly submitted that the impugned order dated August 26, 2022, was appealable under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner's counsel also conceded that an appeal under Section 85 of the 1994 Act was an available remedy. The petitioner's concern was the elapsed period for filing the appeal. The respondents' counsel further submitted that the petitioner, having diligently pursued the matter before the High Court, was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. They also agreed to entertain an appeal if filed within four weeks from the date of the order. In light of these submissions and the conceded position regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court disposed of the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated August 26, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Division East-II, GST & CX, Gurugram, rejecting the petitioner's refund claims from March 2012 to June 2017, is amenable to challenge before this Court by way of a writ petition, or whether an alternative statutory remedy is available and ought to be availed. (This issue turns on the interpretation of the availability of appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner initially approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order and release of refund. However, upon being informed of the appealable nature of the order, the petitioner conceded that an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 was an available remedy. The petitioner's primary concern was that the period for filing such an appeal had elapsed. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the impugned order is appealable under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which is a complete code in itself. They contended that the petitioner should seek redressal through this statutory appeal, especially as the claim is disputed. They further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period the matter was pending before the High Court, and that any appeal filed within four weeks would be entertained.
Sections Cited
Section 85, Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-26057-2022(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26057-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 28.01.2025 Hays Business Solutions Private Limited … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. *** ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral) A certiorari is prayed for, to quash the Order-in-Original No.12/Refund/CGST/Div-East-II/2022-23, dated August 26, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Division East-II, GST & CX, Gurugram (respondent No.2), whereby the refund claims of the petitioner from March 2012 to June 2017, have been rejected. Further, a direction is prayed for, commanding the respondents to release the refund of an amount of Rs.2,96,43,782/- along with interest. The records show that the matter has been pending since November, 2022, and a formal response on behalf of the respondents has also been filed. At the outset, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order dated August 26, 2022, is appealable under Section 85 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (1994 Act), which is a complete code in itself. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner, if aggrieved, could seek redressal of its grievances by filing an appeal, particularly when the claim set out by it is seriously disputed by the respondent-authorities. RAJAN KUMAR 2025.02.06 10:23 I am approving this document
CWP-26057-2022(O&M) 2 Upon being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes, for the impugned order is appealable, the petitioner had the option to prefer an appeal under Section 85 of the 1994 Act. Accordingly, after arguing the matter at some length, he submits that he be permitted to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to avail the said remedy. However, it is urged that the matter has been pending before this Court for over two years, and the period prescribed to file any such appeal under Section 85 of the 1994 Act has since elapsed. In response, learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that since the petitioner has been diligently pursuing the matter before this Court, he is certainly entitled to the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Further, he fairly submits that if any such appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the same shall be entertained. And, the competent authority would deal therewith and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In the wake of the position sketched out above, as also the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the petition stands disposed of. ( Arun Palli )
Judge 28.01.2025 Rajan ( Sudeepti Sharma ) Judge Whether speaking / reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RAJAN KUMAR 2025.02.06 10:23 I am approving this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.