Piramal Enterprises LTD. Through Authorized Signatory Shri Amit Jain vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court decided to remand all the writ petitions to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication. The Court noted the respondents' application for remand to consider the impact of the Apex Court's suo motu order, relevant circulars, and notifications. The petitioner did not object to this remand. The Court found it appropriate to remand all three matters together, as the common impugned order dealt with refunds for different periods, and the applicability of the new legal pronouncements needed to be considered. The impugned orders dated 18.02.2021, 28.10.2020, and 27.01.2021 (in WP Nos. 25311-25313/2022) and the orders dated 11.10.2021 and 24.12.2020 (in WP No. 27580/2022) were set aside. The Court explicitly stated that no comments were made on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that where subsequent legal developments necessitate re-examination of refund claims, and parties consent to remand, the appellate authority should reconsider the matter afresh, applying the latest legal position.

Facts

The petitioner, Piramal Enterprises Ltd., filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and Assistant Commissioner under the CGST Act, 2017. The primary challenge in WP Nos. 25311, 25312, and 25313 of 2022 concerned an order dated 18.02.2021, which held the revised refund claim barred by limitation. The petitioner had claimed refunds of CGST/SGST/IGST paid on raw materials and input services used for exports, filing returns on 20.04.2018 and 09.07.2019, and a rectified claim on 21.05.2020. The appellate order set aside refund sanction orders pertaining to input tax credit used in manufacturing during January, February, and March 2018. WP No. 27580 of 2022 challenged orders dated 11.10.2021 and 24.12.2020. The respondents sought remand for re-examination in light of Supreme Court judgments and GST circulars.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revised refund claim filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation under Notification No. 02/2019-CT dated 29.01.2019, as held by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the refund claims were filed within the permissible period, and the subsequent rectification and review orders were subject to challenge. They sought to have the matter decided on merits or remanded for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The respondents initially sought to justify the appellate order but later applied for remand to re-examine the matter in light of the Apex Court's suo motu order (Civil No. 3/2020), Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST, and Notification No. 13/2020 Central Tax dated 05.07.2022. For some petitions, they argued for a decision on merits as replies were filed.