Delhi High Court
Gs Exim International Llp Through Its ... vs Commissioner, Central Excise / (Gst) ... on 8 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 3300/2022
GS EXIM INTERNATIONAL LLP THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED
PARTNER BHAKTI PADA GHOSH ..... Petitioner
versus
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE / (GST) APPEALS-I,
THROUGH JOINT COMMISSIONER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Farman Ali, SPC with Ms. Usha Jamwal and Mr.
Krishan Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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-
Appeal. Accordingly, we are of the view that Order-in-Appeal cannot
be sustained and the matter calls for a remit.
7. 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.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2024/vp
