Keysight Technologies PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Adjudicating Authority's conduct in defying and violating the order of the Appellate Authority was highly deprecable and unacceptable. The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority acted beyond its norms by stating that it could not comply with the higher authority's order and rejecting the petitioner's refund claim. If the Adjudicating Authority believed the Appellate Authority's order was not in accordance with law, it should have filed a further appeal. The Court emphasized that such defiance would lead to administrative anarchy. Consequently, the impugned order dated February 21, 2022, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within four weeks. The Court also directed the Commissioner of CGST to take note of the Adjudicating Officer's conduct and issue appropriate instructions to prevent recurrence.

Facts

The petitioner, Keysight Technologies India Private Limited, challenged an order dated February 21, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Range-V, Bidhannagar Division. This order rejected the petitioner's refund claim. The impugned order was passed on remand from a higher Appellate Authority, which had directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the refund application and pass a speaking order on March 26, 2021. However, the Adjudicating Authority, in its order of February 21, 2022, explicitly stated that the Appellate Authority's order was not in accordance with law and that it could not comply with it, thereby rejecting the refund claim. The respondents' counsel were unable to defend this conduct.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with law by refusing to comply with a binding order of a higher Appellate Authority, thereby rejecting the petitioner's refund claim? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority's order was passed in defiance of and in violation of the binding order of the Appellate Authority. Such conduct was described as highly deprecable, leading to administrative anarchy and exceeding the norms of quasi-judicial functions. The petitioner argued that if the Adjudicating Authority disagreed with the Appellate Authority's order, it should have pursued a further appeal. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned Advocates appearing for the respondents were not in a position to defend the conduct of the Adjudicating Authority.