M/S Kancor Ingredients LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others
Held
The Court, without entering into the merits of the case, dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the availability of an alternative remedy. The respondents had pointed out that the petitioner could approach the Appellate Forum under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if aggrieved by the order dated July 27, 2020. The petitioner did not dispute this contention. Therefore, the Court found that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an effective alternative statutory remedy. The Court did not decide on the merits of whether the Assistant Commissioner had exceeded the scope of the remand order.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Kancor Ingredients Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 27, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Bareilly. The petitioner sought to quash this order and sought a direction to process refund applications as per a prior order dated July 19, 2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded a refund claim concerning CETH 3301 to the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Assistant Commissioner decided the refund claim for CETH 3301 along with claims for CETH 2906 and 3003, which the petitioner argued was beyond the scope of the remand order. The respondents suggested that the petitioner could approach the appellate forum under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a point not disputed by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, exceeded the scope of the remand order dated July 19, 2019, by deciding refund claims for CETH 2906 and 3003, in addition to the remanded claim for CETH 3301? The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner's order dated July 27, 2020, improperly decided refund claims for CETH 2906 and 3003, which were not part of the remand order from the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents contended that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order, an alternative remedy was available before the appellate forum under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Sections Cited
Section 35A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 673 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Kancor Ingredients Ltd.
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anant Kumar Tiwari,Dhananjay Awasthi Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following prayers:- " (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 27.7.2020 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Division-I, Bareilly. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to process the fund applications filed by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 19.7.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) (Annexure 2 to the writ petition)."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.7.2019 relating to the matter for refund c
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.