(2024) taxcode.in 592 HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Hindalco Industries Ltd.
v.
The Union of India and Ors.
Wp No. 29039 of 2024
Decided on 15-Oct-24
Sanjeev Sachdev Judge and Justice Vinay Saraf
Add. Info:
For Appellant(s): Shri V. Sridharan – Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Jain, Sourabh Bhise and Shri Kunal Karecha – Advocates
For Respondent(s): Shri R.D. Padraha – Government Advocate
Brief about the decision:
Judgment/Order:
Petitioner impugns order dated 29.03.2024 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax has allowed the appeal of the petitioner on 29.03.2024 and remitted the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is aggrieved by said order to the limited extent that the demand of revenue has been upheld alongwith penalty and interest. He submits that the part refund was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner subject to production of documents. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 29.12.2002 was issued requiring the petitioner to respond within a period of 30 days. He submits that even before expiry of 30 days, on 03.01.2023 the impugned order was passed rejecting the refund claim and upholding the demand of the revenue alongwith interest and penalty.
He submits that the Appellate Authority has clearly held that petitioner had undertaken export of goods and thus, refund claimed under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 could not be denied and further it has been held that main input supply of petitioner is coal and petitioner was eligible to claim refund of the accumulated ITC.
He submits that the matter has been remitted on the ground that original documents were not produced before Adjudicating Authority. He further submits that original documents could not be produced as, before the time for filing reply was exhausted, the impugned order was passed. The matter has now been remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration with liberty to petitioner to produce the relevant documents. It is however directed that the petitioner shall not be eligible to get any consequential benefits. He submits that the consequence of same is that the revenue would be pressing for recovery of its claim and petitioner would be denied the benefits of interest and other consequential benefits, even if petitioner were to succeed before the Adjudicating Authority.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner would be precluded from filing a fresh application in terms of order dated 29.03.2024 as the online system does not permit a second application for the same claim and furthermore if the second application is filed, petitioner would be denied the claim of interest for the interregnum between first application and subsequent application.
Issue notice.
Notice is accepted by counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
Shri R.D. Padraha, Advocate who appears for State of MP states that he is also the standing counsel for the CGST Authority. However, he has not been instructed in the subject matter. He is requested to accepted notice and take instruction.
Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.
List after four weeks.
In the meantime, operation of order dated 29.03.2024 to the limited extent that it upholds the demand of revenue under Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 alongwith interest and penalty shall remain stayed. It would however be open to the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the claim of refund of petitioner as permitted by order dated 29.03.2024 without being influenced by pendency of the present petition.
Further in the meantime, it would be open to petitioner to file a fresh application claiming refund in terms of order dated 29.03.2024. However, the same would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties and claim of the petitioner of interest for interregnum shall be subject to further order of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA)
JUDGE
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Original judgment copy is available here.