Bombay High Court
Pitney Bowes India Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India And Ors on 12 August, 2024
Author: K.R. Shriram
Bench: K.R. Shriram
2024:BHC-AS:32476-DB 1/3 7-WP-7462-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
PURTI
PURTI PRASAD
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRASAD PARAB
PARAB Date:
2024.08.14
10:28:03
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 7462 OF 2023
Pitney Bowes India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner
V/s.
The Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents
----
Mr. Prasad Paranjape a/w Mr. Sanjeev Nair and Ms. Dhruvi Shah i/b
Lumiere Law Partners for Petitioner.
Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar for Respondents.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 12th AUGUST 2024
P.C. :
1. Petitioner is impugning an order dated 27th January 2022 and
another order dated 3rd January 2022 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting
petitioner's claim for refund of Rs.1,39,15,620/-. Petitioner had filed two
applications for the period July 2019 to November 2019 and December
2019 to March 2020 claiming refund of Rs.26,52,575 and Rs.1,12,63,045/-
respectively. By these two impugned orders Respondent No. 2 had rejected
the appeal filed by petitioner against two orders in original dated 28 th April
2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise,
Division II, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate.
2. Paragraph No. 6.5.5 of the impugned order dated 27 th January
2022 reads as under :
6.5.5 I find that the Appellant's contention that the
Adjudicating Authority failed to discuss certain submissions made
Purti Parab
2/3 7-WP-7462-2023.doc
by the Appellant also contains some merit. For example, the
detailed tables containing reconciliation of liability reported in
form GSTR 1 vis-a-vis Form GSTR 3B (refer para no. 4.5 above)
presented by the Appellant to the Adjudicating Authority find no
mention in the impugned order. As per the Appellant, these
submissions were part of their additional submission made on
28.04.2021 by email, the day the impugned order was passed.
Given these facts, the Appellant's contention that the Adjudicating
Authority rushed through the proceedings without considering the
submission available on record, appears to hold water. However, it
may well be that the submissions, made through email, were gone
unnoticed without any intention on part of the Adjudicating
Authority to disregard it. Even though we accept the lacunae on
part of Adjudicating Authority in reconciling of GSTR-1, with
GSTR-3B, still the refund appears to be not eligible because of the
other grounds like differences in GSTR-2A and Annexure-B,
mismatch in FIRC/BRC and non availability of BRC on the DGFT
website.
3. Paragraph Nos. 6.2 and 6.3 of the impugned order dated 3 rd
January 2022 reads as under :
6.2 I find that there are some points raised in the impugned
order such as complete address not mentioned in the invoice,
copies of invoices not legible, date mentioned in Softex Form was
not matching with the invoice which, I think, the Appellant have
satisfactorily countered by their detailed submission.
6.3 I find that the Appellant's contention that the Adjudicating
Authority failed to discuss certain submissions made by the
Appellant also contains some merit. For example, the detailed
tables containing reconciliation of liability reported in Form GSTR
1 vis-a-vis Form GSTR 3B (refer para no. 4.7 above) presented by
the Appellant to the Adjudicating Authority find no mention in the
impugned order. As per the Appellant, these submissions were part
of their additional submissions made on 28.04.2021 by email the
day the impugned order was passed. Given these facts, the
Appellant's contention that the Adjudicating Authority rushed
through the proceedings without considering the submission
available on record, appears to hold water. However, it may well
that the submissions, made through email, were gone unnoticed
without any intention on par the Adjudicating Authority to
disregard it.
4. In our view, in view of what is quoted above, Respondent No.2
instead of dismissing the appeal ought to have considered all the documents
and points himself and pass suitable order.
Purti Parab
3/3 7-WP-7462-2023.doc
5. Therefore, we hereby quash and set aside the two impugned
orders dated 27th January 2022 and 3rd January 2022 and remand the
matter for denovo consideration to Respondent No. 2.
6. Respondent No. 2 shall consider all documents and give a
personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast
7 working days in advance. Petitioner is at liberty to file further documents
during the personal hearing to explain that foreign exchange remittance
received co-relates with the export invoice. After the personal hearing if
petitioner wishes to file written submission recording what transpired
during the personal hearing, petitioner may do so within 5 working days
thereof.
7. If Respondent No. 2 is going to rely on any judgment/order of
any Court or Tribunal, he shall provide a list thereof alongwith notice of
personal hearing so that petitioner will be able to deal with the same/
distinguish the same during the personal hearing. Any order passed shall be
a reasoned and detailed order dealing with all the submissions of petitioner.
8. Petition disposed. No order as to costs.
9. Respondent No. 2 shall dispose petitioner's appeal on or before
31st October 2024.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Purti Parab
