Imran Javed vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Imran Javed, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order dated October 7, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge. The GST authority rejected the petitioner's claim for a refund on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was legally flawed and relied on two unreported decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court. The respondent GST authority, represented by Mr. Ghosh, conceded that the cited decisions favored the petitioner and suggested remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated October 7, 2021, was bad in law. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, particularly the concession made by the learned advocate for the State that the unreported decisions cited by the petitioner were applicable to the present case. The Court agreed that the matter should be reconsidered. The ratio decidendi is that if relevant High Court judgments, even if unreported, cover the facts of a case and are conceded by the revenue, the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits, not on the preliminary ground of limitation. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent concerned to consider the petitioner's refund application afresh on merits, in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated October 7, 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. To support this, the petitioner relied on two unreported decisions: the Bombay High Court's order dated January 10, 2022, in Writ Petition (L) No. 1275 of 2021 (Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Anr.), and the Madras High Court's order dated September 28, 2021, in WP No. 18165 of 2021 (M/s. GNC Infra LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Ekkatuthangal, Commercial Tax Department). Revenue's contention: The learned advocate for the State fairly submitted that the aforesaid decisions covered the facts of the present case in favor of the petitioner and that the matter should be remanded back to the officer concerned for fresh consideration on merits.