Bombay High Court
Knowledge Capital Services Pvt ... vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2023
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra Shantilal Jain
KAWRE
KIRAN
2023:BHC-OS:9484-DB
KALYAN
Digitally signed by
KAWRE KIRAN
KALYAN
Date: 2023.09.06
23-WPL-36458-2022.odt
11:41:18 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36458 OF 2022
Knowledge Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b UBR Legal, for Petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State.
__________
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2023.
P.C.:
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges an
order dated 25 July 2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax,
(ACS) Goregaon-East, whereby the petitioner's application for refund of
the tax as made under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Act 2017, stands rejected.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is an ex-
parte order and has been passed without providing for an opportunity of a
hearing to the petitioner. The period in question, in regard to the refund
application, is from April 2019 to March 2020.
3. Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
Kiran Kawre Page 1 of 3
-------------------------
04 September, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 23:34:30 :::
23-WPL-36458-2022.odt
that in an identical situation, the petitioner was required to approach this
Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 61 of 2023 (M/s
Knowledge Capital Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) on which
a coordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment dated March 29, 2023
reported in 2023 PIOL-476-HCMUM-GST had set aside the order
impugned therein which was similar to the order as impugned in the
present proceedings, with a direction that the refund application be
restored to the file of the authority to be processed as per the procedure as
applicable and as discussed in the said judgment. It was also directed that
if there was any deficiency in the petitioner's application, the same be
informed to the petitioner as per form - GST-RFD-2003 and that the
application be processed as per law. Mr. Raichandani would submit that
the present case is not different from what had fell for consideration in this
Court Writ Petition No.61 of 2023 filed by the petitioner. He submits that
for the similar reasons, the impugned orders are required to be set aside
and the matters remanded to respondent No.3 for fresh orders to be
passed by following the due procedure and in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Takke, has placed reliance on the reply-
affidavit as filed on behalf of the respondents to justify the impugned
order, however, the fact remains that the petitioner was not granted
hearing on that and hence the order itself was ex-parte order and not
passed by following the procedure, which cannot be disputed by Mr.
Takke.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the
record, as also the impugned order, we are in agreement with Mr.
Raichandani that the present proceeding would stand covered by the
Kiran Kawre Page 2 of 3
-------------------------
04 September, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 23:34:30 :::
23-WPL-36458-2022.odt
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the petitioners own case
"M/s. Knowledge Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India" (supra). For the
reasons as recorded in such judgment, we are of the opinion, that the
respondent No.3 needs to follow the procedure which has been set out in
the rules. We find that such a procedure was not followed in the present
case by respondent No.3 passing the ex-parte order.
6. We accordingly allow the present petition in terms of the following
order.
ORDER
(I) The impugned order dated 25 July 2022 is quashed and set aside.
(II) The application of the petitioner for refund as filed under Section
16 of the IGST read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, is restored to the
file of respondent No.3 to be decided a fresh by following the appropriate
procedure and in accordance with law.
(III) If there are any deficiencies on the application, the same be
intimated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and within a period
of three weeks from today.
(IV) Let the refund application be decided within a period of ten weeks
from the date the present order is placed on record before respondent
No.3.
(V) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
7. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
-------------------------
04 September, 2023
