M/S Radiant Enterprise PVT LTD And Anr vs. Jt Commissioner,CGST And Cx GST Bhawan And Ors

Held

The Division Bench held that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order at this stage. The Court noted that the Single Judge had directed affidavits to be filed to clarify certain factual issues. Therefore, the Division Bench made it clear that they had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Parties were permitted to agitate all factual and legal issues in the pending writ petition. The Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to file an affidavit-in-opposition within five working days and serve an advance copy on the appellant's counsel, with the appellant to file a reply, if any, within three days thereafter. The Registry was directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench within ten days of the completion of pleadings. The appeal and connected applications were disposed of with these observations.

Facts

This intra-Court appeal concerns an order dated 03.02.2022 passed in a writ petition (WPA 1366 of 2022). The appellant, M/s. Radiant Enterprises Private Limited, is aggrieved by the writ court's decision. The appellant contends that the appellate authority, the Commissioner of CGST & CX (Appeals), Calcutta-1, dealt with two issues: (1) whether the recipient of services/goods can claim a refund for excess tax payment, and (2) whether a building purchased by the appellant from M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd. is taxable under GST. The appellant argues that the second issue was not part of the original show cause notice. The original authority held against the appellant on the first issue, but the appellate authority decided it in the appellant's favour. The appellant asserts they should not be in a worse position due to the appellate authority's decision on the second issue. The respondent argues that the original proceedings did cover the second issue, referencing a notice in the form of GST-RED-08 dated 24.09.2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recipient of services or goods can apply for refund claims for excess payment of tax, as per the relevant GST provisions? 2. Whether the building purchased by the appellant from M/s. Eveready Industries Ltd. is taxable under GST, and if this issue was properly raised in the original proceedings? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argues that the second issue regarding the taxability of the purchased building was not part of the original show cause notice. They contend that in an appeal filed by them, they cannot be placed in a worse situation by a negative finding on an issue not originally contested. They also highlight that a substantial amount of refund is still pending. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent argues that the original proceedings did encompass the second issue, referring to the notice in the form of GST-RED-08 dated 24.09.2019, which they claim provided reasons for rejection that would cover all issues.