J. M. Sales Corporation And Anr vs. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bally And Salkia Charge And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, J. M. Sales Corporation & Anr., challenged an order dated March 18, 2021, passed by the respondent-GST authority, and a subsequent appellate order dated August 18, 2021. Both orders rejected the petitioner's claim for a refund. The primary ground for rejection by the authorities was the issue of limitation. The petitioners argued that the rejection was bad in law and presented several High Court decisions in support of their contention. The State was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bally & Salkia Charge, Bally Circle & Ors.

Held

The Court considered the submissions of the parties and, in light of the judgments referred to by the petitioner, found merit in the petitioner's challenge. The Court set aside the impugned order dated March 18, 2021, and the appellate order dated August 18, 2021. The Court directed the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's refund application afresh. Crucially, the reconsideration is to be done on merits and not on the point of limitation. The respondent is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and considering the referred judgments within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court disposed of the matter with a direction for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 18, 2021, and the appellate order dated August 18, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the grounds of limitation, are bad in law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the rejection of the refund claim solely on the ground of limitation was legally unsustainable. To support this, the petitioner relied on several unreported decisions from the Bombay High Court (Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Anr., dated January 10, 2022) and the Madras High Court (M/s. GNC Infra LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner (Circle) Ekkatuthangal, Commercial Tax Department, dated September 28, 2021). The petitioner also referred to a prior order of this Court in Imran Javed v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors. (dated February 2, 2022). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument presented by the State or the revenue authorities.