Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WPT No. 53 to 65 of 2024
Decided on : 09-04-2024
Notification - Challenge to Impugned Notification - Section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - [Section 8, Section 16 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, Section 54 of the CGST Act, Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, Article 14 of the Constitution of India] - The court discussed the challenge to Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023 - Central Tax dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, which provided for the extension of the time limit for filing appeals against orders involving tax. The court analyzed the constitutional validity of the clause, its interpretation, and its impact on taxpayers' rights to appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of aluminium products, sought relief through a writ petition challenging the rejection of its refund application for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) of the GST Compensation Cess paid on coal. The rejection was based on the ground that the supply of electricity to the township was considered a non-business activity. The petitioner also challenged the interpretation of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023, which limited the admissibility of appeals in cases not involving tax demands.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the rejection of the refund application and the interpretation of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification. It held that the appeals filed by the petitioner were barred by limitation and that no cogent reason was provided for the delay. The court also stated that the impugned clause did not merit a declaration of being ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the refund application, the interpretation of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification, and the constitutional validity of the clause.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeals filed by the petitioner were time-barred and that no valid reason was provided for the delay. It also found that the impugned clause did not violate the Constitution of India and did not warrant a declaration of being ultra vires.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal or the learned Single Judge, if advised.
ORDER :
Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Mr. Bharat Raichandani and Mr. Omkar Sharma (through video conferencing) and Mr. K.Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 6.
2. Since common facts and issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order. WPT No. 53/2024 is taken as the lead case.
3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner {in WPT No. 53/2024} has prayed for following reliefs:-
10.2 Issue any writ, order or direction reading down the Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No.53/2023 – Central Tax dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Annexure P-3) to mean that Appeals pertaining solely to orders denying refund are outside the purview Clause 5; And
10.3 Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction calling for records in relation to Appeal Case No.336/GST/2023; And
10.4 Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned Order dated 05.12.2023 passed in Appeal Case No.336/GST/2023 by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Bilaspur (Annexure P-1) whereby the Petitioner’s Appeal has been summarily rejected; AND
10.5 Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction thereby a holding that the impugned Order dated 05.12.2023 passed in Appeal Case No.336/GST/2023 (Annexure P-1) is contrary to Notification No.53/2023 – Central Tax dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) which is in favour of the Petitioner and directing the Respondent No.4 to restore the appeal and hear the same on merits without raising the issue of limitation under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act; AND/OR
10.6 Alternatively, issue a writ or an order or a direction condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal No.336 and directing the Respondent No.4 to hear the same on merits without raising the issue of limitation under Section 107(1); AND/OR.
10.7 That the cost of the Petition be provided for; AND/OR
10.8 issue any other direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice.”
4. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that it is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is primarily engaged in the manufacture and sale of aluminium products. The petitioner's factory/plant is located at Korba, Chhatisgarh. The petitioner has established two captive power plants (for short, the CPP), i.e., power plant having production capacity of 540MW and 1200MW. The electricity generated in the power plants is primarily used in the manufacture of aluminium. The CPP procures coal for the purpose of generating electricity. As per Section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (for short, the Cess Act), cess shall be levied on such supplies of goods/services and at such rates, not exceeding the rate specified in column 4 of the Schedule, as may be notified by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax Council. Pursuant to the stipulation under Section B of the Cess Act, the Central Government issued the Notification No. 1/2017 - Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 ("Notification No. 1"). As per entry provided at serial no. 39,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appeals filed by the petitioner were time-barred, and the impugned clause limiting the admissibility of appeals in cases not involving tax dem....
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
High courts shall not exercise writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, especially where procedures like personal hearings were completed. Judicial intervention is lim....
The rejection of refund claims without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and the principles of natural justice, rende....
Recovery actions must adhere to mandatory procedures, ensuring due process and proper notice to the party liable, not conflated with unrelated entities.
No bar under Section 54(1) CGST Act on second refund application for inadvertently omitted invoice within prior quarterly period if filed within two-year limitation; technical rejections invalid, mat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
