Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO.. 2772/2022
M/s. Parag Corporation, having its registered address at P.No. F-
812, Road No. 14, VKI Area, Jaipur-302013 and through its
proprietor Smt. Madhu Jain W/o Sh. Pawan Jain, firm was
registered under Central Goods And Service Tax Act (GST) and
having Registration Number:- 08ABUPJ0221FlZV
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Principal Commissioner, Commissioner of Customs,
3.
4.
Building, Jaipur-3020
issioner, Range-11,
Area Road No. 1
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
arma, Advocate
For Respondent(s)
HON'BLE THE ACTING CH
RA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
4.
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain
1.
Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India against the non release of refund of IGST paid for the
month of January, 2020.
2.
The contention of the petitioner is that by status petitioner is
a proprietorship based in Jaipur and is engaged in business of
manufacture and trading of furniture. The petitioner is engaged in
export of said product and has exported the goods from Mundra
on payment of IGST during the month of January, 2020 and as per
provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 96
of CGST Rules, 2017 he is entitled for refund under Section 16 of
the IGST Act, 2017 for a sum of Rs.24,56,610/-.
The petitioner
has contended that at the time of filing GSTR-1 for the period of
January, 2020 for the above exported invoices accounting clerk
form GSTR-3B has not been Q@-EQY~
after great efforts a sh
issued on 21.12.2021
whereby an opportunit
en to explain as to why
the refund claim of the
Id not be rejected. The
petitioner in respons
cause notice filed a
detailed reply and
g upon provisions of
law as well as facts
closed GSTR3B1 GSTR-
1 tax liability s ~ m r n a r y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ a r i
4.
The
learned
adjudicating
authority
i.e.
Assistant
Commissioner rejecting the said refund claim vide order dated
13.01.2022 turned down the refund on the following facts:-
"3. On examination of reply to SCN i.e. RFD-09,
it is observed that claimant the reasons on
which basis the refund claim was purposed for
rejection. Therefore, the claim is being rejected
on the reasons mentioned herein below-
1. It is not clear from the reply of claimant
that excess payment of Rs.24566101- has been
done in the month of Jan-2020.
2. It has been observed from the GSTR-3B
& GSTR-1 for the month of Jan-2020 that no
excess payment has been done by the taxpayer
in this month. Tax liability of Rs.24,56,610/-
disclosed in 3.l(d)
of GSTR-3B is made in
respect of the Export and the same is verified
from the shipping bills mentioned in the GSTR-1
that the export has been done with payment of
tax during the month of Jan-2020.
4.
the refund
5.
Being aggrie
id action, the present writ
petition was filed,
er for directing the
respondents to per
the return GSTR-1
filed by the petition
of January, 2020 in
consonance with return
ner has also submitted
that even as per Rule
constituted as an
export document and
6.
On considerati
writ petition and
submissions of the I
the petitioner it was
observed that as per wx
107 Chapter-XVIII of
the CGST Act, 2017, which is hereinafter reproduced, against any
decision, order passed by the adjudicating authority there is a
provision of appeal which has to be filed in the prescribed format
within a period of three months.
'107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-
(1) Any
person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority'
as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person."
7.That the case in hand pertains to disputed question of fact as to whether the goods were zero rated supplies and as per provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, refund/rebate was & Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 h nder Article 226 can only be entertained I n bypassing alternate route provided in the st ere is gross violation of principles of natu fundamental rights, the action of the responde ction or vires of the Act are under challenge o efficacious remedy is available. The relevan '
15.Under . 6 O, t ".Constitution, the High Court,Phayr#gdh%he facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its juri iction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without juri iction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the filed."
8.I n the case in hand Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2007 caters to the need of the petitioner. The provisions of CGST Act, 2007 and the Rules are self contained, the prayers made for requisite amendments in GST return forms, refund and setting aside the impugned order are vested with the appellate Authority. ~ - stage and Section expected to consider t etitioner in accordance with law and adjudi own merits within a period of three mon les of natural justice and considering the ins
11.All pending appl (SAMEER IAIN),J RIVASTAVA),ACTING Cl ArunlI6
