Rishabh Transformers vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the amendment application had to be considered on its own merits, and the liberty granted to the petitioner to file an amendment application did not constitute permission or consent for the amendment itself. The Court agreed with the respondents' argument that an equally efficacious remedy by way of a statutory appeal was available to the petitioner against the impugned order dated May 22, 2020, under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the Court refrained from allowing the application for amendment. Consequently, the application for amendment was dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the amendment application, the original writ petition was also dismissed as nothing further survived for consideration. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue any efficacious remedy available in law. The Court further directed that if the petitioner filed an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the appellate authority should condone the delay and proceed on the merits of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Rishabh Transformers, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice. During the pendency of this petition, an order dated May 22, 2020, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The rejection was based on the ground that the application was time-barred and in contravention of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner then filed a miscellaneous application seeking to amend the writ petition to challenge this refund rejection order. The respondents, Union of India and the Commissioner of CGST, opposed the amendment, arguing that a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment application to challenge the order dated May 22, 2020, rejecting the refund claim should be allowed, considering the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the amendment application was filed because the Court had granted leave to do so via an order dated May 29, 2020, which allowed two weeks to file the amendment. They relied on this liberty granted by the Court. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that a wholly adequate, sufficient, and complete remedy by way of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available to the petitioner against the order dated May 22, 2020. They argued that the liberty granted by the Court did not amount to permission for the amendment and that the amendment application had to be considered on its own merits.