M/S Foce Industries vs. The Chief Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise And 3 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Foce Industries, represented by Shri Rajesh Pandagre, sought a direction from the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Guwahati Division-II, to settle its budgetary claims. These claims were to be settled in accordance with a DIPP Notification dated 05.10.2017 and CBIC's Circular dated 10.01.2019. The petitioner's counsel noted a distinction from a previous batch of writ petitions, stating that while CENVAT was utilized in those cases, the present case involved payment made by cash. This distinction was disputed by the learned CGST counsel.

Held

The Court noted that the issue at hand had been resolved by a previous judgment of the Court in a batch of writ petitions, including WP(C) No. 5675/2012, decided on 02.03.2023. This prior judgment had taken into account a communication dated 22.02.2023, which indicated that the issues involved were largely redressed by the Department. The Court stated that the directions passed in the order dated 02.03.2023 would also be applicable to the present case. While the petitioner's counsel pointed out the difference in payment method (cash vs. CENVAT utilization), the learned CGST counsel disputed this distinction. The Court directed that this specific issue be taken into consideration by the Department while processing the petitioner's case. The writ petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have its budgetary claims settled in terms of the DIPP Notification dated 05.10.2017 and CBIC's Circular dated 10.01.2019, and if so, whether the mode of payment (cash vs. CENVAT utilization) affects this entitlement. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the aforementioned notification and circular, and potentially relevant provisions of the GST law concerning claim settlement. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that its budgetary claims should be settled as per the specified notification and circular. They highlighted that their payment was made by cash, differentiating their case from previous matters where CENVAT was utilized. Revenue's Contention: The learned CGST counsel disputed the petitioner's assertion regarding the distinction based on the mode of payment, implying that the mode of payment does not alter the entitlement or the process of claim settlement.