Abhitex International vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel fairly accepted that an appeal was maintainable against the order rejecting the refund claim. However, the counsel contended that the second prayer, seeking to carry forward the amount as Input Tax Credit while filing GSTR-3B, could not be granted by the appellate authority. Given these circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petition. It granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the order of rejection before the appropriate authority. Furthermore, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition to pursue the second prayer if it became necessary. The Court expressed confidence that the appellate authority would deal with the refund matter expeditiously and in accordance with the law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the refund rejection or the ITC carry-forward issue.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhitex International, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petitioner sought two reliefs: firstly, to quash an order dated 9.4.2021, passed by the respondents (State of Haryana & another), which rejected their refund claim. Secondly, in the alternative, the petitioner prayed for directions to allow them to carry forward the rejected refund amount as Input Tax Credit (ITC) while filing their GSTR-3B. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that an appeal was maintainable against the order rejecting the refund claim but argued that the appellate authority could not grant the second prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 9.4.2021, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner can be allowed to carry forward the rejected refund amount as Input Tax Credit (ITC) while filing GSTR-3B? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that while an appeal is maintainable against the order rejecting the refund claim, the appellate authority would not have the power to grant the alternative prayer of allowing the carry-forward of the rejected amount as ITC in GSTR-3B. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents (State of Haryana & another).