Remanded

Gs Exim International LLP through Its Designated Partner Bhakti Pada Ghosh v. Commissioner, Central Excise / (Gst) Appeals-I, through Joint Commissioner & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/3300/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi set aside an appellate order rejecting a GST refund application as it was cryptic and failed to address submissions. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh, reasoned disposal after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.09.2021; restored the appeal for fresh disposal by the Appellate Authority after a personal hearing.

Gs Exim International LLP through Its Designated Partner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~5

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Date of decision: 08.02.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 3300/2022

¶5

GS EXIM INTERNATIONAL LLP THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER BHAKTI PADA GHOSH ..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE / (GST) APPEALS-I, THROUGH JOINT COMMISSIONER & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondent: Mr. Farman Ali, SPC with Ms. Usha Jamwal and Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocates.

¶11

CORAM:-

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Petitioner impugns Order-in-Appeal dated 09.09.2021, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the Order-in-Original dated 21.08.2020 has been dismissed.

¶16

Petitioner had filed an application seeking refund of GST. The Proper Officer issued a show cause notice dated 04.08.2020 proposing to reject the refund. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a reply on 12.08.2020 and submitted the same through the online portal.

¶17

W.P. (C) 3300/2022

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 9.02.2024 15:02:50

¶20

Petitioner has also produced a copy of the reply and submitted that the same was also physically supplied to the Adjudicating Authority at the time of hearing of the show cause notice. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority, rejected the application by an order dated 21.08.2020, which led to the petitioner filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

¶21

A perusal of the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.09.2021 shows that the order is a cryptic order and does not deal with any of the submissions made by the petitioner. Said order in paragraph 5- Discussion and Findings, gives a brief narration of the fact, then notices the contention of the petitioner and, thereafter, extracts a Board Circular and then in the next paragraph numbered as 7 merely holds that in view of the above legal provisions, appellant has not fulfilled the eligibility conditions for taking input tax credit.

¶22

Appellate Authority in paragraph 5 has noted submissions of learned counsel on behalf of petitioner, however, there is no consideration of the submissions in the subsequent paragraphs and the order merely extracts the Board Circular and holds that the eligibility conditions are not complied with.

¶23

It is not apparent from the order as to why or on what basis findings have been returned that petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility conditions. The order is cryptic and the reasoning is not emanating from the order and there is no specific consideration of the factual matrix or the contentions of the petitioner in the Order-in- W.P. (C) 3300/2022 Page 2 of 3

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 9.02.2024 15:02:50

¶25

Appeal. Accordingly, we are of the view that Order-in-Appeal cannot be sustained and the matter calls for a remit.

¶26

In view of the above, the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.09.2021 is set aside. The appeal is restored on the record of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal afresh and pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶27

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶29

FEBRUARY 08, 2024/ vp

¶30

W.P. (C) 3300/2022

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 9.02.2024 15:02:50

Gs Exim International LLP through Its Designated Partner Bhakti Pada Ghosh v. Commissioner, Central Excise / (Gst) Appeals-I, through Joint Commissioner & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gs Exim International LLP through Its Designated Partner Bhakti Pada Ghosh v. Commissioner, Central Excise / (Gst) Appeals-I, through Joint Commissioner & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

La Tropicana Residents Association Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rajnish Mishra and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Aditya Malhotra & Anr. Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

Neeraj Paper Marketing Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii, New Delhi

Jyoti Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Vidya Vihar Cghs Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sh. Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors.

M/S Subhash Chand Kathuria Vs Punjab National Bank

Arjun Singh Vs Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Neeraj Paper Marketing Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii, New Delhi

Ravin Sachdev Proprietor of M/S Seams Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sidheshwar Prasad Vs M/S Vian Infrastructure Ltd. through Mr Surya Kritichand Thapar, Ex Director & Anr.

Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Tasha Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Anand International and Ors. Vs Commissioner of Customs

Sunil Patil Vs the Union of India & Ors.