M/S.Dalmia Cement (Bharat) LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 24.02.2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy II Division. This order rejected the petitioner's refund claim. The petitioner had initially filed a consolidated refund claim in 2010, which was later transferred to the respondent's jurisdiction after the petitioner opted out of the Large Taxpayers Unit. The refund claim, amounting to Rs.3,25,72,830/-, was filed before the respondent on 16.08.2011 and subsequently on 24.01.2012 with documents. This claim was rejected by an Order-in-Original dated 30.05.2012, an appeal against which was dismissed. The matter was remanded by the CESTAT for de novo adjudication. Despite subsequent communications and a pending miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal, the respondent issued the impugned order rejecting the refund claim for want of documents, which the petitioner claims were submitted.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2022 was passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the personal hearing was scheduled for 19.01.2022, and the petitioner had submitted documents, including a Chartered Accountant Certificate, on 25.02.2022, as evidenced by an acknowledgment. However, the impugned order at page 7 stated that the Chartered Accountant Certificate had not been produced. This discrepancy indicated that the order was passed hastily without considering all submitted documents and without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, consider all documents, conduct an enquiry, and pass orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.02.2022, rejecting the refund claim, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity to be heard and the consideration of submitted documents, as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent passed the impugned order without providing reasonable time for document submission and without considering documents already submitted on 25.02.2022, including a Chartered Accountant Certificate. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without application of mind, as it incorrectly stated that no such documents were submitted. They further argued that an enquiry should have been conducted and an opportunity to explain should have been given. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the impugned order, as provided under the law, instead of filing a writ petition. They contended that an appeal would allow for proper verification of documents and factual submissions.