Pitney Bowes INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Original PDF →

WP/7462/2023HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM01035710202212 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The Petitioner, Pitney Bowes India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated January 27, 2022, and January 3, 2022, passed by Respondent No. 2. These orders rejected the Petitioner's refund claims totaling Rs. 1,39,15,620/- for the periods July 2019 to November 2019 (Rs. 26,52,575/-) and December 2019 to March 2020 (Rs. 1,12,63,045/-). These appeals were filed against two original orders dated April 28, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise. The Petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider their submissions, including detailed reconciliation tables of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, which were submitted on the same day the original orders were passed.

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 2, instead of dismissing the appeals, ought to have considered all documents and points raised by the Petitioner. The Court found merit in the Petitioner's contention that the Adjudicating Authority failed to discuss certain submissions, specifically the detailed tables reconciling GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, which were presented as additional submissions. While acknowledging that these submissions might have been overlooked unintentionally, the Court noted that this lacuna existed. However, the Court also observed that even with this lacuna, the refund appeared to be ineligible based on other grounds mentioned in the impugned orders, such as discrepancies in GSTR-2A, FIRC/BRC mismatches, and non-availability of BRC. Despite these other grounds, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders of Respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The ratio is that appellate authorities must consider all submissions and documents, and where there is a failure to do so, even if other grounds for denial exist, the matter should be remanded for proper adjudication. The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to grant a personal hearing, consider all documents, allow the filing of further documents to explain foreign exchange remittance correlation, and pass a reasoned order by October 31, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the Petitioner's submissions, particularly the reconciliation of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, thereby vitiating the original orders? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the Adjudicating Authority rushed through the proceedings without considering crucial submissions, including detailed reconciliation tables of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, which were submitted via email on April 28, 2021. They contended that these submissions were not mentioned in the impugned orders, suggesting a lack of proper consideration. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue. However, the impugned orders, as quoted, mention other grounds for rejecting the refund, such as differences in GSTR-2A and Annexure-B, mismatch in FIRC/BRC, and non-availability of BRC on the DGFT website, implying these were the revenue's grounds for denial.

Sections Cited

CGST Act, 2017

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1/3 7-WP-7462-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7462 OF 2023 Pitney Bowes India Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner V/s. The Union of India and Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Prasad Paranjape a/w Mr. Sanjeev Nair and Ms. Dhruvi Shah i/b Lumiere Law Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : 12th AUGUST 2024 P.C. : 1. Petitioner is impugning an order dated 27th January 2022 and another order dated 3rd January 2022 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting petitioner’s claim for refund of Rs.1,39,15,620/-. Petitioner had filed two applications for the period July 2019 to November 2019 and December 2019 to March 2020 claiming refund of Rs.26,52,575 and Rs.1,12,63,045/- respectively. By these two impugned orders Respondent No. 2 had rejected the appeal filed by petitioner against two orders in original dated 28th April 2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division II, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate. 2. Paragraph No. 6.5.5 of the impugned order dated 27th January 2022 reads as under : 6.5.5 I find that the Appellant’s contention that the Adjudicating Authority failed to discuss certain submissions made Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.08.14 10:28:03 +0530 2/3 7-WP-7462-2023.doc by the Appellant also contains some merit. For example, the detailed tables containing reconciliation of liability reported in form GSTR 1 vis-a-vis Form GSTR 3B (refer para no. 4.5 above) presented by the Appellant to the Adjudicating Authority find no mention in the impugned order. As per the Appellant, these submissions were part of their additional submission made on 28.04.2021 by email, the day the impugned order was passed. Given these facts, the Appellant’s contention that the Adjudicating Authority rushed through the proceedings without considering the submission available on record, appears to hold water. However, it may well be that the submissions, made through email, were gone unnoticed without any intention on part of the Adjudicating Authority to disregard it. Even though we accept the lacunae on part of Adjudicating Authority in reconciling of GSTR-1, with GSTR-3B, still the refund appears to be not eligible because of the other grounds like differences in GSTR-2A and Annexure-B, mismatch in FIRC/BRC and non availability of BRC on the DGFT website. 3. Paragraph Nos. 6.2 and 6.3 of the impugned order dated 3rd January 2022 reads as under : 6.2 I find that there are some points raised in the impugned order such as complete address not mentioned in the invoice, copies of invoices not legible, date mentioned in Softex Form was not matching with the invoice which, I think, the Appellant have satisfactorily countered by their detailed submission. 6.3 I find that the Appellant’s contention that the Adjudicating Authority failed to discuss certain submissions made by the Appellant also contains some merit. For example, the detailed tables containing reconciliation of liability reported in Form GSTR 1 vis-a-vis Form GSTR 3B (refer para no. 4.7 above) presented by the Appellant to the Adjudicating Authority find no mention in the impugned order. As per the Appellant, these submissions were part of their additional submissions made on 28.04.2021 by email the day the impugned order was passed. Given these facts, the Appellant’s contention that the Adjudicating Authority rushed through the proceedings without considering the submission available on record, appears to hold water. However, it may well that the submissions, made through email, were gone unnoticed without any intention on par the Adjudicating Authority to disregard it. 4. In our view, in view of what is quoted above, Respondent No.2 instead of dismissing the appeal ought to have considered all the documents

and points himself and pass suitable order. Purti Parab

3/3 7-WP-7462-2023.doc

Therefore, we hereby quash and set aside the two impugned orders dated 27th January 2022 and 3rd January 2022 and remand the matter for denovo consideration to Respondent No. 2. 6. Respondent No. 2 shall consider all documents and give a personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 7 working days in advance. Petitioner is at liberty to file further documents during the personal hearing to explain that foreign exchange remittance received co-relates with the export invoice. After the personal hearing if petitioner wishes to file written submission recording what transpired during the personal hearing, petitioner may do so within 5 working days thereof.

If Respondent No. 2 is going to rely on any judgment/order of any Court or Tribunal, he shall provide a list thereof alongwith notice of personal hearing so that petitioner will be able to deal with the same/ distinguish the same during the personal hearing. Any order passed shall be a reasoned and detailed order dealing with all the submissions of petitioner.

Petition disposed. No order as to costs.

Respondent No. 2 shall dispose petitioner’s appeal on or before 31st October 2024. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.