M/S. Hirepro Consulting Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/direction/ order quashing the Order-in-Appeal No.21-32/ADC-AI/GSTE/2021 dated 08.01.2021 (Annexure-D) passed by Respondent No.2 as arbitrary and unjust. b) Issue of a writ/order/direction in the nature Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to consider the refund application of the Petitioner in the light of evidence regarding supply/receipt of services other than by way of invoices with endorsement by specified officer of SEZ or to re-consider the refund applications and sanction refund to the extent of invoices with endorsement presently obtained and in the possession of the Petitioner. c) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that during the period from 04.12.2018 to 22.01.2019, the petitioner HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49277 made 12 refund claims to the respondent No.1, who issued a show cause notice dated 10.02.2020 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund claims were not to be rejected. The petitioner submitted replies dated 25.02.2020, which culminated in an impugned order dated 26.02.2020 partially rejecting the refund claims of the petitioner and partially allowing the refund claims of the petitioner, as could be seen from the impugned orders produced as Annexures-C1 to C12. Aggrieved by the orders of the Adjudicating Authority partially rejecting the refund claims of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the second respondent Appellate Authority and produced additional documents in support of his claims. However, having regard to the request made by the petitioner for remand, the Appellate Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the appeal on the ground that the Appellate Authority did not have power to remand in view of Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “CGST Act”). Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49277
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional documents sought to be produced by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority would have a direct and substantial impact/bearing upon the claims of the petitioner for refund in relation to the refund claims rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and as such, it is necessary that both the orders of the Appellate Authority as well as the Adjudicating Authority, to the extent they rejected the refund claims of the petitioner, are liable to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration afresh of the rejected refund claims of the petitioner in accordance with law, by providing one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the only request made by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was for a remand to the original authority, the Appellate Authority did not have any other option, but to dismiss the appeal in the light of the specific embargo/bar contained in Section 107(11) of the CGST Act and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49277
A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced all relevant documents in support of his claim. However, having regard to the specific submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in addition to the documents produced by the petitioner before the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner would produce additional documents to demonstrate and substantiate its claim, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth and substantiate its claim coupled with the fact that the Appellate Authority is not entitled/empowered to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, I deem it just and appropriate to exercise my juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in order to do substantial justice, I deem it just and proper to set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority insofar as they relate to partially rejecting the refund claims of the petitioner and remit the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49277
In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii) The Impugned orders passed by the respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru, at Annexure-C series, C1 to C12, all dated 26.02.2020 as well as the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru, at Annexure-D, insofar as they relate to partially rejecting the refund claims of the petitioner are hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the refund claims of the petitioner insofar as they relate to the partial rejection of the refund claims of the petitioner for reconsideration afresh and in accordance with law. iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 18.12.2025, without awaiting further notice from the respondent No.1. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49277 v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional documents, pleadings etc., which shall be considered by the respondent No.1, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.