M/S Shyam Textile Through Proprietor Rakesh Ram Swaroop Chechani vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Held
The Court held that the present case is squarely covered by the decision in M/s. Asian Organo Industries vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (2021 (2) TMI 921-GHC). Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as the cited order. The operative direction was for the respondent No.1 (Principal Commissioner of Customs) to immediately examine the matters and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law concerning the petitioner's claim for IGST refund. This exercise was to be completed within six weeks from the receipt of the writ of the order. The Court also took into consideration the ratio of decisions in M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (2019 (107) taxmann.com 167 (Gujarat)) and Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (SCA No. 1014 of 2020 decided on 15th December, 2020). No issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Shyam Textile, through its proprietor Rakesh Ram Swaroop Chechani, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order or action by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The specific tax period and the exact nature of the dispute, including the amount in dispute, are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, the core of the matter revolves around a claim for IGST refund. The procedural history indicates that the parties agreed to dispose of the present petition based on a prior decision of a cognate bench in Special Civil Application No. 20500 of 2019.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in M/s. Asian Organo Industries vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (2021 (2) TMI 921-GHC)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, agreed that the petition could be disposed of in the same terms as the order dated 17th February, 2021, passed in Special Civil Application No. 20500 of 2019. This implies the petitioner believed their case was factually and legally similar to the cited precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by its counsel, also agreed that the petition could be disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned order. This indicates the Revenue did not contest the applicability of the precedent to the present case.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
We have heard Shri Ravirajsingh Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioner and shri Nikunt Raval, learned counsel for the department.
Learned counsel for the parties agreed that this petition can be disposed of in the same terms as the order dated 17th February, 2021 passed by
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 Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.