M/S. Munjoh Resorts Private Limited And Anr. vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax , Haldia And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the respondent authority concerned had recovered an amount from the petitioners exceeding 10% of the demand that finally arose after the reduction by the Commissioner of Appeals. This action was deemed not legally sustainable. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the respondent Authority to refund the money to the petitioner in excess of 10% of the aforesaid demand, which arose after its merger with the order of the Commissioner of Appeals. This refund was to be made within four weeks from the date of the order, along with statutory interest. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Munjoh Resorts Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, Commissioner of Central Tax, Haldia CGST, in considering their refund claim. The petitioners had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and made the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the demand arising from the original adjudication order. They contended that recovery of any amount in excess of this 10% pre-deposit was not sustainable in law. The petitioners relied on several High Court decisions to support their claim. The respondent CGST Authority opposed the petition, arguing that for refund of amounts exceeding 10% pre-deposit, the petitioners should approach the Tribunal where the appeal was pending. They also contended that the cited decisions were distinguishable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondent CGST Authority in considering the petitioners' refund claim, arising from an amount recovered in excess of the mandatory 10% pre-deposit made for an appeal, is legally sustainable under the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they are entitled to a refund of amounts recovered in excess of the mandatory 10% pre-deposit made for their appeal before the Appellate Authority. They contended that such recovery is not sustainable in law, citing relevant statutory provisions of the CGST Act and decisions from the Bombay High Court (Ramchandra A. Patankar vs. Union of India), Karnataka High Court (Unisys India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commr. Of Central Tax, Bengaluru), and a previous judgment of the same High Court (Haldia Petrochemicals Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Haldia-II Division, Haldia Commissionerate & Ors.). Revenue's Arguments: The respondent CGST Authority argued that for refund of amounts beyond the 10% pre-deposit, the petitioners should approach the Tribunal where the appeal is pending. They further contended that the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts. The respondent also noted that the Commissioner had reduced the demand in the original order.