M/S Rafflesia Trading Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Goods And Services Tax And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rafflesia Trading Private Limited, challenged an order dated November 30, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax, Ballygunge Charge. The GST authority rejected the petitioner's refund claim on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was bad in law and relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court, as well as a previous order from the Calcutta High Court. The respondent-State GST authority, after considering the cited decisions, conceded that they covered the present case in favour of the petitioner and suggested remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated November 30, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the grounds of limitation, was to be set aside. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, particularly the concession made by the respondent-State GST authority that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner were in their favour. The reasoning was based on the principle that if relevant judicial precedents cover the facts of a case and are acknowledged by the revenue, the matter should be reconsidered on merits rather than being dismissed on a preliminary ground like limitation. The ratio decidendi is that refund claims should be decided on merits when binding precedents favour the assessee, and the revenue concedes to this. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's refund application afresh on merits, not on the point of limitation, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated November 30, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the grounds of limitation, is bad in law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was bad in law. They relied on an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No.1275 of 2021 (Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd.-vs-The Union of India & Anr.), an unreported decision of the Madras High Court in WP No.18165 of 2021 (M/s. GNC Infra LLP-vs-Assistant Commissioner), and a prior order of the Calcutta High Court in WPA No.950 of 2022 (Imran Javed v. Assistant Commissioner). Revenue's Contention: The respondent-State GST authority, represented by Mr. Mukherjee, fairly submitted that the cited decisions were covered in favour of the petitioner and that the matter should be remanded back to the officer concerned for fresh consideration on merits.