Mani Leather Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Mani Leather Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25th March, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge, Kolkata. This order rejected the petitioner's application for a refund under Section 54 of the WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that it was entitled to the refund based on Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 31st March, 2020, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and an unreported decision of the High Court dated 2nd February, 2022, in WPA 950 of 2022 (Imran Javed vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.). The State was represented by its learned advocates.

Held

The High Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's refund claim. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authority within two weeks. If such a representation is filed within the stipulated time, the respondent authority is directed to consider it in accordance with the law. This consideration must include taking into account Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST and the High Court's order dated 2nd February, 2022, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the representation. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the petitioner's claim, which would be decided by the authority as per law and the observations in the present order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 25th March, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's refund application under Section 54 of the WBGST Act, 2017, is legally sustainable, considering the Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST and the High Court's prior decision in WPA 950 of 2022. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it was entitled to the refund based on the aforementioned circular and the High Court's prior order. The petitioner relied on Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST and the unreported decision in WPA 950 of 2022. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State.