Dish Tv INDIA LTD. At Essel House, B-10 vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CGST Noida Commissionerate And 2 Others
Held
The Court, without entering into the merits of the refund claim, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the respondent no.1 (Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Noida Commissionerate) to decide the petitioner's refund application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the date of communication of the order. The decision was to be made by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the refund claim itself. The operative direction was to decide the pending application.
Facts
Dish Tv India Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a Mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Noida Commissionerate, and two other respondents to decide their application for a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. This application, filed on June 26, 2018, under Rule 173(S) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, had remained pending for over three years. The petitioner stated that neither a hearing date had been fixed nor any order communicated regarding their refund claim. The revenue was not present, and the Court heard the petitioner's counsel.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authority to decide the petitioner's refund application dated 26.06.2018, pertaining to unutilized CENVAT credit, in a time-bound manner with a reasoned and speaking order, as mandated by Rule 173(S) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their refund application had been pending for over three years without any progress, necessitating judicial intervention to direct the respondent to decide it expeditiously and with a reasoned order. Revenue's Contention: No arguments were recorded for the revenue as they were not present.
Sections Cited
Rule 173(S), Section 11B, Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 388 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dish Tv India Ltd. At Essel House, B-10 Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner Of Cgst Noida Commissionerate And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhijeet Mukherji Counsel for Respondent :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
List revised. None present for the revenue.
Heard Sri Divya Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Present petition has been pressed for the following relief: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to decide the Application dated 26.06.2018 pertaining to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit made in Form-R under the provisions of Rule 173(S) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 in accordance with law and with reasoned and speaking order in a time bound manner."
In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his application claiming refund has remained pending since more than three years before respondent no.
Neither any date has been fixed on that refund application nor
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.