9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 133 - HC - GSTRefund rejection order of ITC on export of goods without payment of integrated tax - violation of the principles of natural justice - whether order of refund rejection order dated 05.12.2023 in which extraneous material has been taken into consideration or not? - HELD THAT - As is evident 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. 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 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. CWJC No. 19159 of 2024 is allowed in part. 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.
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
(i) Whether the refund rejection order dated 05.12.2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kishanganj Charge, took into consideration extraneous material not disclosed to the petitioner in the show-cause notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to submit explanations or rebuttal against all material facts relied upon by the authority in rejecting the refund claim; (iii) Whether the appellate authority, in affirming the refund rejection order by its order dated 22.07.2024, properly appreciated the petitioner's contentions regarding the use of extraneous material and denial of opportunity; (iv) Whether the absence of an agreement between the petitioner and the buyers is a mandatory requirement for claiming refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on export of goods without payment of integrated tax; (v) The extent to which the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding recording of reasons and adherence to natural justice apply to quasi-judicial authorities under the GST Act in the context of refund claims. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Consideration of Extraneous Material and Violation of Natural Justice The legal framework governing quasi-judicial functions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act mandates that authorities must act fairly, provide reasons for their decisions, and afford the affected party an opportunity to be heard. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which elucidates the principles of reasoned decision-making and natural justice. The principles include the requirement that a quasi-judicial authority must record cogent, clear, and succinct reasons, and must not base its decision on extraneous or undisclosed material without affording the affected party a chance to respond. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show-cause notice along with material information, except for an agreement between the petitioner and buyers, which was not mandatory. However, the refund rejection order relied on certain extraneous material that was not part of the show-cause notice, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to address this material. The Court found this to be a breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The appellate authority, while affirming the rejection, failed to appreciate this crucial aspect, thereby perpetuating the procedural infirmity. The Court emphasized that the rejection order must be treated as a further show-cause notice, and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to submit explanations on all material facts considered by the authority. 2. Requirement of Agreement Between Seller and Buyer for Refund Claim The petitioner contended that the absence of an agreement between the seller and the buyer is not a mandatory requirement for claiming refund of ITC on export of goods without payment of integrated tax. The Court noted this admission and observed that the authorities erred in treating the absence of such an agreement as a ground for rejection. This point was critical in assessing whether the petitioner's refund claim was valid and whether the authorities' reliance on this factor was justified. The Court's analysis implicitly reaffirmed that while material information is necessary for processing refund claims, the law does not mandate an agreement as a prerequisite, and rejection on this basis alone would be improper. 3. Role and Duty of Quasi-Judicial Authorities under GST Act The Court reiterated the duties of quasi-judicial authorities, such as the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, in discharging their functions under the GST Act. These include adherence to the principles of natural justice, recording of reasons, and ensuring transparency and accountability in decision-making. The Court underscored that failure to comply with these principles renders the order liable to be set aside. The Court cited the Supreme Court's observations that reasoned decisions are the "sine qua non" of justice and that transparency restrains abuse of power. The Court held that the impugned orders lacked the necessary reasoned approach and procedural fairness, warranting interference. 4. Appellate Authority's Affirmation of the Rejection Order The appellate authority's role is to independently scrutinize the impugned order and ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed. In this case, the appellate authority affirmed the refund rejection order without addressing the petitioner's contention regarding the extraneous material and denial of opportunity. The Court found this affirmation flawed as it failed to consider the procedural defects and did not provide a reasoned order addressing all relevant points. 5. Procedural Directions and Remedy Given the above findings, the Court directed that the refund rejection order dated 05.12.2023 be treated as a further show-cause notice. The petitioner was granted eight weeks to furnish explanations and documents addressing all material facts, including those extraneous materials previously relied upon without notice. The Joint Commissioner was directed to pass a detailed, speaking order thereafter, strictly adhering to the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's guidelines on reasoned decision-making. The appellate authority's order dated 22.07.2024 was set aside, and the refund rejection order was remanded for reconsideration in light of the petitioner's submissions. Significant Holdings The Court's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in its reliance on the Supreme Court's principles from Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., which emphasize that: "A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions... Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations... Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies... Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny." The Court concluded that the impugned refund rejection order was vitiated by the consideration of extraneous material without affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond, thus violating principles of natural justice and rendering the order liable to be set aside. The core principles established include:
Accordingly, the Court set aside the refund rejection order and the appellate order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the principles outlined above.
|
