Suchita Millenium Projects PVT LTD. vs. Asst. Comm. Of CGST And Cx, And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Suchita Millenium Projects Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 25, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata. This order rejected the petitioner's application for a GST refund. The petitioner contended that their refund application was rejected on grounds of limitation, without considering the period of limitation extended by a Supreme Court order during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impugned order explicitly stated that the claim was not time-barred and was rejected on other grounds.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for dismissal was the availability of an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order. The Court also noted that the petitioner's counsel had made a misrepresentation regarding the grounds for rejection of the refund application. The Court found that the impugned order explicitly stated that the claim was not time-barred and had been rejected on grounds other than limitation. Therefore, the petitioner's argument based on the COVID-19 limitation extension was factually inaccurate as per the order under challenge. The Court dismissed the writ petition on these grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the impugned order rejecting the refund application is an appellable order, thereby providing an alternative statutory remedy? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their refund application was rejected on the grounds of limitation, and the adjudicating authority failed to consider the benefit of the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. They sought to have this aspect considered. Revenue's Contention: The CGST Authorities, through their learned advocates, contended that the petitioner's claim of rejection on limitation grounds was factually incorrect. They pointed to the impugned order which clearly stated that the claim was not time-barred and had been rejected on other grounds. They also argued for the availability of an alternative remedy.