Cryptic Reasons For Denying Refund Claim Does Not Render The Order Non-Speaking: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the claim for refund has been declined by assigning reasons which may be cryptic on bare perusal but are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the exact cause for the rejection of the claim for refund.The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti has observed that the reasons assigned for declining the refund...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the claim for refund has been declined by assigning reasons which may be cryptic on bare perusal but are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the exact cause for the rejection of the claim for refund.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti has observed that the reasons assigned for declining the refund claim cannot categorise the orders as being non-speaking. The order does not dissuade the assessee from knowing the mind of the adjudicating authority or dissuade him from filing an appeal.
The petitioner/assessee assailed the orders passed by the department refusing the claim for a refund of the accumulated credit of compensation cess. The principal grounds of challenge were that the refund had been wrongly denied and the consequential orders of refusal to refund were non-speaking.
The department argued that the orders declining refunds contain sufficient justification to keep them from being sacrificed at the altar of natural justice.The claim for refund made by the petitioner was time barred on the anvil of Section 54 (14) (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In terms of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, the claim for refund was untenable on facts and also in law. Since the petitioner did not avail the input tax credit of compensation cess on coal during the relevant period, the claim for refund for the financial years 2017–18 and 2018–19 was inadmissible.
The department contended that the petitioner submitted the application for refund under the wrong category of "any other," whereas the correct category was "refund of unutilized ITC on account export without payment of tax."
The department objected to the maintainability of this petition for the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act.
The court dismissed the writ petition and stated that the petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which, if availed, within a period of 60 days, then it shall be considered and decided on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone.
Case Title: Prism Johnson Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 160
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate M.P. Devnath
Counsel For Respondent: Advocate Abhijeet Shrivastava