Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2289 (RAJ)

Vaibhav Global Limited v. Union of India

2023-12-21

ARUN BHANSALI, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 30.10.2023 (Annex.2) passed by the respondents, whereby the demand of IGST amounting to Rs. 3, 33, 89, 976/-, wrongly claimed as refund, has been confirmed alongwith further directions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to raise several submissions pertaining to the action of the respondents in raising the demand by order impugned. Submissions were made that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner resulting in the order impugned is based on a wrong premise and that the only basis for raising the demand is that the petitioner claimed benefit of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, to which it was not entitled, however, under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 ('the Act'), the petitioner is eligible and has rightly claimed the refund and, therefore, the action of the respondents is wholly unjust. 3. Reliance has been placed on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing Authority & Ors. : AIR 2023 SC 781 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, to whom advance copy of petition has been supplied, made submissions that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner way back on 22.03.2022 and the petitioner choose not to file any response to the show cause notice. Though no interim order was passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, it kept on insisting that the proceedings be deferred, however, after the stay petition was dismissed in DBCWP No.4465/2021, the authority proceeded pursuant to the show cause notice and though no reply was filed, has exhaustively considered all the issues raised by the petitioner including the claim that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of Section 54 of the Act and has negated the said contention. Further submissions have been made that the order impugned is open to appeal under Section 107 of the Act and no case has been made out for bypassing the said alternative remedy and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Further submissions have been made that the order impugned is open to appeal under Section 107 of the Act and no case has been made out for bypassing the said alternative remedy and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner only on account of pendency of DBCWP No.4465/2021, choose not to respond to the said show cause notice and put forth his response to the said show cause notice and insisted on the adjudication being deferred only on account of pendency of said petition. Apparently, even when the stay petition was rejected on 07.08.2023, despite such rejection also, no response was filed, however, the authority has passed a detailed speaking order dealing with all possible pleas raised by the petitioner. The submission made pertaining to the entitlement of the petitioner under Section 54 of the Act, which even otherwise is not a jurisdictional aspect, already stands examined and negated by the authority vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023 and the petitioner has to question the validity of said determination in accordance with law including filing of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. 7. We are firmly of the opinion that no case has been made out in the writ petition so as to invoke our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the settled parameters, based on which, the same can be invoked by this Court despite availability of remedy of appeal, including as law laid down in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra). 8. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal in accordance with law.