Patna High Court
Vaishnodevi Adivsory Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19159 of 2024
======================================================
Vaishnodevi Adivsory Private Limited through its Director Jaydeep Dhanuka,
Male, aged about 33 years, S/o - Jagdish Chand, Resident of Vaishnodevi
Niwas, Bhagat Singh Sarani, Lane No.3, Punjabi Para, P.S. - Siliguri
(M.Corp), District- Darjeeling, West Bengal - 734001, having its registered
place of Business at 1 Kurlikot Thakurganj, Kishanganj, Bihar - 855116.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 800015.
2. The Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Appellate Authority, Mariam
Nagar, Purnea Division, Purnea, Bihar - 854301.
3. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kishanganj Charge, Kishanganj, Bihar
855107.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18690 of 2024
======================================================
Vaishnodevi Advisory Private Limited through its Director Jaydeep Dhanuka,
Male, aged about 33 years, S/o- Jagdish Chand, Resident of Vishnodevi
Niwas, Bhagat Singh Sarani, Lane No.3, Punjabi Para, P.S.- Siliguri
(M.Corp), District - Darjeeling, West Bengal- 734001, having its registered
place of Business at 1 Kurlikot Thakurganj, Kishanganj, Bihar - 855116.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Appellate Authority Mariam
Nagar, Purnea Division, Purnea, Bihar - 854301.
2. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kishanganj Charge, Kishanganj, Bihar
855107.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18761 of 2024
======================================================
Vaishnodevi Advisory Private Limited through its Director Jaydeep Dhanuka,
Male, aged about 33 years, S/o Jagdish Chand, Resident of Vaishnodevi
Niwas, Bhagat Singh Sarani, Lane No. 3, Punjabi Para, P.S. - Siliguri
(M.Corp), District- Darjeeling, West Bengal- 734001, having its registered
place of Business at 1 Kurlikot Thakurganj, Kishanganj, Bihar - 855116.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 800015.
2. The Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Appellate Authority, Mariam
Nagar, Purnea Division, Purnea, Bihar - 854301.
3. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kishanganj Charge, Kishanganj, Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.19159 of 2024 dt.18-03-2025
2/8
855107.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19159 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Shraff, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate
Mr.Amit Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr.Aryan Sinha
Mr.Amit Kumar Singh
Md.Zeeshan Khan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (11)
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18690 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate
Mr.Aryan Sinha, Advocate
Mr.Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Md.Zeeshan Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (11)
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18761 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate
Mr.Aryan Sinha, Advocate
Mr.Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Md.Zeeshan Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 18-03-2025
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief(s):-
"(i) To issue rule in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate & setting
aside the order passed in Form GST APL 04
being Appellate Order bearing Reference No.
ZD100724032096T dated 22.07.2024 by the
Respondent no. 2 being Annexure P-1 hereof.
(ii) To issue rule in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, quashing & setting aside the
order passed in Form GST-RFD-06 being
Refund Rejection Order bearing order number
Patna High Court CWJC No.19159 of 2024 dt.18-03-2025
3/8
ZD101223005975T dated 06.12.2023 by the
Respondent no. 3 being Annexure P-2 hereof."
2. Petitioner claimed for refund of ITC on export of
goods without payment of integrated tax which is stated to be
valued at Rs.44,44,328/- the same has been rejected. In the
meanwhile, show-cause notice has been furnished to the petitioner
furnishing certain material information. The petitioner had
submitted material information except stating that agreement
between the petitioner and buyers. It is admitted fact that
agreement between the seller and buyer is not mandatory.
However, perusal of the rejection order, it is evident that while
rejecting the petitioner's refund claim certain extraneous material
has been taken into consideration without providing opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner or submission of explanation on such
material informations.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the refund rejection order dated
05.12.2023
, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate
authority and appellate authority affirmed the order of refund
rejection order by its order dated 22.07.2024. Hence, the present
writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that he had submitted reply to the show-cause notice
along with the material information except stating that there is no
Patna High Court CWJC No.19159 of 2024 dt.18-03-2025
agreement between the petitioner and buyers and it is not
mandatory requirement for the purpose of claiming refund. It is
submitted that in the refund rejection order, extraneous material
has been taken into consideration which were not part and parcel
of show-cause notice. In other words, petitioner has not been
provided an opportunity of submission of his explanation to such
of those extraneous material which has been taken into
consideration in the order of refund rejection order. The same was
not appreciated by the Appellate Authority on these counts
impugned decision dated 05.12.2023 & 22.07.2024 are liable to be
set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that sufficient material has been shown in the impugned
order of refund of rejection order. In this regard, it was bounden
duty of the petitioner to furnish those material information which
were short coming. That apart, Appellate Authority has affirmed
the order of refund of rejection order. Therefore, no interference is
called for.
6. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
7. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether order
of refund rejection order dated 05.12.2023 in which extraneous
material has been taken into consideration or not? As is evident
Patna High Court CWJC No.19159 of 2024 dt.18-03-2025
from the show-cause notice read with the petitioner's explanation.
Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kishanganj Charge, Kishanganj,
Bihar is exercising quasi-judicial function under the GST Act. He
has taken extraneous material while passing order on 05.12.2023
and the same has been appreciated by the Appellate Authority in
its order dated 22.07.2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, in para 40, it is held as under:-
"40. In Kranti Associates this
Court after considering various judgments
formulated certain principles in SCC para
47 of the judgment which are set out below :
(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must
record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only
be done it must also appear to be done as
well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become
as indispensable a component of a decision-
Patna High Court CWJC No.19159 of 2024 dt.18-03-2025
making process as observing principles of
natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial
and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process
of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in
all countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as
the judges and authorities who deliver them.
All these decisions serve one common
purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for
sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice
delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about his/her
decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp
reasons' is not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency
Patna High Court CWJC No.19159 of 2024 dt.18-03-2025
in decision-making not only makes the
judges and decision-makers less prone to
errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100
Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.)
(n) Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the
said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain,
EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v.
University of Oxfords, wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which
requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions'.
(o) In all common law
jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a
part of 'due process'."
8. In the light of the aforementioned principles read
with facts in the present case, petitioner has made out a case so as
to interfere with the impugned action of the respondents.
Accordingly, so called refund rejection order of the Joint
Commissioner of State Tax, Kishanganj Charge, Kishanganj, Bihar
treated as a further show-cause notice to the petitioner and
petitioner is hereby directed to furnish his explanation along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.19159 of 2024 dt.18-03-2025
documents, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. Thereafter, Joint Commissioner of State Tax,
Kishanganj Charge, Kishanganj, Bihar is hereby directed to pass a
detailed speaking order while taking note of the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision and
proceed to consider each of the contention to be raised by the
petitioner against the treated show-cause notice dated 05.12.2023.
9. CWJC No. 19159 of 2024 is allowed in part.
Re:CWJC Nos. 18690 of 2024 & 18761 of 2024
10. CWJC No. 18690 of 2024 and CWJC No. 18761 of
2024 are allowed in part in terms of order passed in CWJC No.
19159 of 2024, while set aside the Appellate Authority order and
so called refund rejection order treated as show-cause notice. Rest
of the order in so far furnishing explanation and passing speaking
order in terms of lead CWJC No. 19159 of 2024.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
