SGST High Court Cases

GST – Rejection of Refund, Commonality of rank/cadre Officers - Petitioner had filed a refund application, which was initially sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, but then rejected based on the discrepancies pointed out by the Joint Commissioner (Admn.) - Petitioner's appeal against the rejection order was also dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that he was of the same cadre/rank as the Joint Commissioner - Whether the impugned orders passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim, are valid - HELD – The discrepancies pointed out by the Joint Commissioner (Admn.) in his communication were duly addressed and answered by the Assistant Commissioner in favor of the petitioner. However, the Assistant Commissioner erred in rejecting the refund claim solely based on the communication from the Joint Commissioner (Admn.), even after the Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned the refund twice – Further, in so far as orders passed by the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner are concerned, the 1st respondent [Joint Commissioner (Appeals)] functions or act as an Appellate Authority who would be entitled to reconsider, re-appreciate and revisit the appeal filed by petitioner on merits without being influenced by any finding recorded by the 2nd respondent [Joint Commissioner (Admn.)], who was functioning in an administrative capacity - Mere similarity or commonality in the rank/cadre between the Respondent Nos. 1 [Joint Commissioner (Appeals)] and 2 [Joint Commissioner (Admn.)] could not have been the basis to summarily reject the appeal filed by the petitioner - The impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law – The writ petition is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page