Madras High Court Quashes Revision Order Passed Under TNGST Act Against Renault Nissan For Travelling Beyond The Scope Of Revision Proceedings

The Madras High Court has quashed the revision order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act (TNGST Act) against Renault Nissan for travelling beyond the scope of revision proceedings.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has quashed the revision order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The respondent department was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter issue a speaking order. The exercise shall be completed within a maximum period of two months.

The petitioner/assessee is in the business of manufacturing and supplying passenger cars. The supply is made at concessional rates in terms of Notification No. 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated October 23, 2017. As a consequence, there is an accumulation of input tax credit (ITC) because GST is paid at a higher rate on the inputs (i.e., input goods) and input services procured by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a refund application, seeking a refund. The partial refund claim was sanctioned. Pursuant to an amendment to the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, revision proceedings were initiated. The order came to be issued in such revision proceedings.

The petitioner assailed the order issued in revision proceedings on multiple grounds. The refund order did not warrant revision under the facts and circumstances. By contending that the law as it stood on the date of application permitted a refund claim in respect of unutilized ITC arising out of both inputs and input services, the revision proceedings travel beyond the scope of Section 108 of the TNGST Act.

The petitioner contended that the levy of interest under the impugned order was contrary to Section 50(3) of the TNGST Act. The conclusions were not supported by reason. The imposition of a penalty is erroneous inasmuch as the refund claim was made bona fide under the applicable law. The order does not contain any reasons in support of the levied penalty.

The department contended that the scope of Section 108 of the TNGST Act is wide enough to embrace revision proceedings. As a result of the amended Rule 89(5), no interference is warranted with the revision order.

The court has held that the interest was not leviable under Section 50(3) of the TNGST Act, and penalties should not be levied in light of the facts and circumstances. While the contentions were noticed in the order, the respondent department did not engage with the contentions and record reasons for not accepting them.

Counsel For Petitioner: S.Muthu Venkataraman

Counsel For Respondent: T.N.C.Kaushik

Case Title: Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 72

Case No.: Writ Petition No.11709 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.11172 of 2022

Click Here To Read The Order