Manas Kumar Dey vs. Superintendent Of Head Quarters, Anti-Evasion Union, CGST And Cx, Haldia Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage without delving into the merits or legality of the refund claim. The petitioner was granted liberty to make an appropriate representation before the concerned CGST authority for their refund claim within two weeks from the date of the order. If such a representation is made within the stipulated time, the respondent authority is directed to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law, providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative, within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Court clarified that since the petition was disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. No specific provision of the CGST Act or Rules was discussed in detail.

Facts

The petitioner, Manas Kumar Dey, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an action or order by the Superintendent of Head Quarters, Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate & Ors. The petitioner had made a claim for refund before the CGST authority. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the writ petition was filed and heard at the motion stage without affidavits being called for from the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund claim before the CGST authority? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the petitioner's entitlement to refund under the CGST Act and Rules). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued for the consideration and disposal of their refund claim by the concerned CGST authority. Revenue/State: Did not record any specific arguments, but the Court's direction implies a denial of the allegations in the writ petition as affidavits were not called for.