IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
M/s Ajanta Industries - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 6609 of 2021
Decided On : 16-07-2021
Refund - GST Liability - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 54(7), Rule 90 - Impugned order rejected refund claim based on findings of fake Input Tax Credit by suppliers - Court dismissed writ petition due to failure to challenge findings and approach with clean hands
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a refund claim for GST liability due to financial constraints. The respondent rejected the claim based on findings of fake Input Tax Credit by suppliers.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not challenge the findings of fake Input Tax Credit and did not approach the court with clean hands.
Issues: Challenge to rejection of refund claim, failure to challenge findings of fake Input Tax Credit, approach of petitioner in invoking writ jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: A petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands, and relief may be denied even if statutory provisions are satisfied. Failure to challenge adverse findings may lead to dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
CM NO.20760/2021
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6609/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection order dated 04th April 2021 passed by respondent no.2 in RFD-06. Petitioner seeks refund of Rs.2,05,05,890/- for the period of April 2020-May 2020 along with interest thereon in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was unable to discharge its GST liability in the third half of the year 2020-21 due to financial constraints. He states that the petitioner had duly filed all its returns upto April and May 2020 and is entitled to refund within sixty days from the date of filing Form GST-RFD-01 in accordance with Section 54(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He states that as per Rule 90 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, it is mandatory to issue the acknowledgement in RFD-02 within fifteen days and if not done, all further proceedings would be without jurisdiction. Consequently, according to learned counsel for petitioner, due to lapse of time, the respondent is bound to grant refund as prayed for.
3. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that very serious findings of fake Input Tax Credit have been given by the respondent no. 2 in the impugned order. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. Discussion and Findings.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
6.2 Show Cause Notice has been issued to the taxpayer on the basis of findings reported by the Anti Evasion, Branch summarised as below:-
i. Premise found locked during visit on 06.07.2020;
ii. L2 supplier found non-existent at the declared business premises;
iii. Mismatch in HSN of ITC passed on outward supplies and HSN of ITC received on inwards supplies;
iv. L2 suppliers have issued fake and bogus invoices and passed on fake ITC;
v. Summons issued to L1 suppliers have been received back undelivered.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
It is evident that Section 54(3) the GST Act envisages refund of unutilized input tax credit under only two circumstances viz. zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax and credit accumulated on account of inverted tax structure, however subject to provisions of sub- section 10 of section 54 of CGST Act, 2017.
6.5 I further notice that as per GSTR-2A, the taxpayer has received Input tax credit mainly from three L1 stage suppliers, viz. M/s Gaurav Industries (07 AAVFG0017C1ZQ); M/s Isha International (07 AAHFI5290D1ZF) and M/s Ganesh Industries (07AATFG4715BlZH).
6.6 As per GST portal, the GST registration of M/s Gaurav Industries and M/s Isha International have been cancelled suo mota by GST department with effect from 14.03.2020 and 24.04.2019 respectively, however, as per GSTR-2A, they had supplied goods in the month of April 2020.
6.7 Further, the Anti Evasion branch has reported that the premises of taxpayer was visited on 06.07.2020 and it was found locked; that Summons dated 14.07.2020 was issued to Sh. Narender Kumar Saini, partner in M/s Ajanta Industries, in relation to another firm M/s Sadhana Pharma Indus tries which is also under investigation; that Sh. Narender Kumar Saini neither appeared nor submitted any documents till date; that during analysis of Input Tax Credit availed by the taxpayer, it was seen that one of the L2 supplier of the taxpayer i.e M/s Sagar International (07ADVFS8382F1ZA) had made outward supplies and passed ITC for medicine (HSN -3004) and Ready made Garments & Synthetic Wallets (HSN; 62, 4202), however they had received inward supplies and ITC for Dry Fruits i.e, Almonds, Anjeer, Pista etc. (HSN 0802, 0804, 2008); that M/s Sagar International has been found non-existent at the principal place of business; that Summons issued to L1 supplier of the taxpayer i.e. M/s Ganesh Industries has been received back undelivered; that it appeared that the L2 supplier M/s Sagar Internationa
A petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands, and failure to challenge adverse findings may lead to dismissal of the petition.
A petitioner in a writ jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands; unchallenged allegations of misconduct can justify denial of relief.
The exclusion period provided in the notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs allowed for the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to be excluded for the purposes of....
The rejection of refund applications cannot be solely based on suspicion without conclusive evidence. The petitioner is entitled to the refund of ITC on goods exported by it.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of filing the application on the common portal should be considered as the date of filing the claim for refund, rejecting the content....
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....
The eligibility of a merged entity for ITC refund is recognized under GST, allowing inclusion of export proceeds from previous tax regimes.
A taxpayer is not required to make repeated applications for seeking a refund after succeeding in appellate proceedings, and the refund claim is required to be processed in accordance with the law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.