Ronix Polymer PVT LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Rishra Division And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Ronix Polymer Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the respondent authority, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Rishra Division, in considering and disposing of its application dated July 26, 2023. This application was for a claim of interest, which the petitioner contended was still pending. The respondent authority, through its counsel, submitted that an appeal had already been filed against the adjudication order upon which the petitioner's claim for interest was based. The High Court heard submissions from both parties.

Held

The High Court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's application for interest, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application for interest strictly in accordance with law. This disposal is to be done by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order. The Court noted the submission by the respondent that an appeal had been filed against the adjudication order on which the interest claim was predicated. The Court did not decide the substantive claim for interest or the validity of the adjudication order, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority has failed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application for interest, thereby causing inaction, as per Section 54(11) of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the respondent authority's inaction in considering and disposing of its application for interest, filed on July 26, 2023, was a violation of its rights. The petitioner contended that the application was pending and required a reasoned decision. The respondent revenue, through its counsel, submitted that an appeal had been filed against the adjudication order that formed the basis of the petitioner's interest claim. This implies that the underlying adjudication is under challenge, potentially affecting the interest claim. The respondent did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's right to have the interest application considered but highlighted the pending appeal.