T.N.G. Knitwears vs. Commissioner(Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax And Another
Facts
The petitioner, T.N.G. Knitwear, through its proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an Order-in-Appeal dated 09.02.2023. This order, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Services Tax (respondent No. 1), referred the case back to the Adjudicating Authority (respondent No. 3). Subsequently, an order dated 07.07.2023 was placed on record, indicating that the petitioner's claim for refund had been rejected. The High Court, in light of this subsequent development, disposed of the petition.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition. The court noted that an order dated 07.07.2023 had been placed on record, which indicated the rejection of the petitioner's refund claim. Consequently, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge this subsequent order (the rejection of the refund claim) in accordance with the law, if they were so advised. The original challenge to the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.02.2023 was rendered moot by the subsequent order. The court did not make any specific findings on the merits of the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.02.2023 itself, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.02.2023, which referred the case back to the Adjudicating Authority, is liable to be quashed. The petitioner argued that this order was not a final determination and that their refund claim had been rejected. The respondents did not present any arguments regarding this issue as the petition was disposed of based on subsequent events. The court had to decide if the petitioner had grounds to challenge the referral order, particularly in light of the subsequent rejection of their refund claim.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023:PHHC:113801-DB 118 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5724-2023 Date of decision: 31.08.2023 T.N.G. Knitwear through its ....Petitioner proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Kumar V/s. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Services Tax and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. **** Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral).
By this petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari for quashing Order-in-Appeal No.LUD-GST-001-APP-32/2023 dated 09.02.2023
(Annexure
P-4)
passed
in Appeal
No. APPL/ADC/GST/249/2021-GST-APL-LDH whereby respondent No. 1 has referred the case back to the Adjudicating Authority-respondent No.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record order dated 07.07.2023 in Court today and the same is taken on record as Annexure ‘R1’. As per the said order, the claim of the petitioner for refund has been rejected.
Keeping in view the above fact, this petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order in accordance with DIVYANSH
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.