M/S. Aring Prodev Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking for the following reliefs: “A. ISSUE a writ of CERTIORARI and/or such or other writ or order quashing the Order No. ACCT/LGSTO-066/RFD/156/2023- 24 dated 19th April 2024 in Annexure N passed by Respondent no.1 and impugned order in appeal No. GST/AP.No.325/2024-25 dated 21.10.2024 in Annexure Q passed by Respondent No.

B. Direct writ(s) in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to forthwith refund the amount of Rs. 10,86,005/-;

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-N passed by respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner in order to point out that the sole basis for respondent No.1 – Assistant NC: 2025:KHC:11892 Commissioner to reject the refund claim of the petitioner was by referring to a direction by the Joint Commissioner on 04.04.2024 directing the Assistant Commissioner to reject the said refund claim putforth by petitioner. It is submitted that the said rejection of the refund claim of the petitioner based on a direction by the Joint Commissioner is impermissible in law in the light of the impugned judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Orient Paper subsequent impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 21.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.2– Appellate Authority in order to contend that despite the said errors contained in the order of Assistant Commissioner being pointed out by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has rejected the appeal on the ground that original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was based on a direction issued by the Joint Commissioner who was of the designation/cadre as that of the Appellate Authority and as such it was not permissible for respondent No.2 – Appellate Authority to admit the appeal and consider the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 deserves to be quashed and the claim of the petitioner for refund be allowed. NC: 2025:KHC:11892

Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merit in the petition and is liable to be dismissed.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from the fact that the impugned order at Annexure-M passed by the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra, the respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner clearly fell in error in refusing to admit the appeal and thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the untenable ground that that order of the Assistant Commissioner was based on direction issued by the Joint Commissioner who was of the same designation/cadre as that of respondent No.

Under these circumstances, in order to enable respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner to pass fresh order on merits, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside Annexure-Q dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the reports, directions etc., issued by the Joint Commissioner which were referred to in the order of the Assistant Commissioner within a stipulated time frame bearing in mind the observations made in this order and the judgments of Apex Court referred to supra. Accordingly, I pass the following: NC: 2025:KHC:11892 ORDER i. Petition is hereby partly allowed. ii. The impugned order, Annexure-Q