M/S Chandra Udyog And Anr vs. The Asst Commissioner CGST Cx ,Shibpur Div And Ors
Held
The Court held that the petitioners' allegation that the impugned order dated May 30, 2022, was not a speaking order was substantially correct. The order failed to deal with the objections and contentions raised by the petitioners in response to the show cause notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the respondent authority to pass a fresh order after considering the contentions raised by the petitioners in their reply dated May 17, 2022, and their objection dated May 24, 2022. The fresh order is to be passed within four weeks of the communication of this order, and the respondent authority must provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representatives. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Chandra Udyog & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 30, 2022, which rejected their claim for a refund of the excess balance in their cash ledger. This rejection was based on a show cause notice dated May 10, 2022. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was a non-speaking, one-line order that failed to consider or discuss their objections dated May 17, 2022, filed in response to the show cause notice. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX Shibpur Division, Howrah CGST Commissionerate, and others were the respondents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated May 30, 2022, rejecting the refund claim, is a non-speaking order that fails to address the petitioner's objections, thereby violating principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the impugned order was a 'non-speaking one line order' which did not consider and discuss their objections dated May 17, 2022, against the show cause notice. They contended that this failure to address their contentions rendered the order invalid. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records submissions from the CGST authority and Union of India, but does not detail their specific arguments against the petitioner's claim that the order was non-speaking. The court's observation indicates it found the petitioner's allegation 'substantially correct'.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 12256 OF 2022 04.07.2022
Sl no. 21
M/s. Chandra Udyog & Anr. Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
The Assistant Commissioner, CGST &
CX Shibpur Division, Howrah CGST
Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Ankit Kanodia,
Ms. Megha Agarwal,
Mr. Jitesh Sah
… for the petitioners
Mr. Kaushik Dey,
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
… for CGST authority
Mr. Subrata Mukherjee
… for Union of India
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition petitioners have challenged the impugned order of rejection of petitioners’ claim of refund of excess balance of cash ledger being annexure P/6 to the writ petition on the basis of the show cause notice dated 10th May, 2022 as appears at page 24 of the writ petition, on the ground that the aforesaid impugned order dated 30th May, 2022 being annexure P/6 to the writ petition is a non-speaking one line order without considering and discussing petitioners’ objection dated 17th May, 2022 against the impugned show-cause notice. Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.