Court dismisses petition to set aside refund rejection under Central GST Act, emphasizes appeal remedy first.

The court dismissed the petition to set aside the rejection of the refund application under Section 54 of the Central GST Act, 2017, emphasizing that the petitioner should have first exhausted the appeal remedy before directly approaching the court. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek remedies before the Appellate Authority, with an application for condonation of delay. The court allowed the petitioner to rely on an interim order and directed the Appellate Authority to consider it. It stressed the importance of following the proper appeal procedure and highlighted that delay alone should not lead to rejection of the appeal on its merits.

---

---

Issues:
Petition to set aside rejection of refund application under Section 54 of Central GST Act, 2017 without exhausting appeal remedy.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside the rejection of their refund application under Section 54 of the Central GST Act, 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner Narela, GST. The respondent argued that the order was appealable before the Additional Commissioner, GST, and the petitioner should have exhausted this remedy before approaching the court directly.

2. The respondent contended that the petitioner bypassed the available appeal remedy and directly approached the court, which is impermissible. On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was part of a batch of petitions seeking refund orders, and no specific decision was made on the petitioner's application. The petitioner also referred to an interim order in another case to support their argument.

3. The court found that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appealing before the Additional Commissioner, GST, which they should have pursued instead of directly filing the petition. The court disposed of the present petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay. The court emphasized that delay alone should not be a ground for the Appellate Authority to reject the appeal on its merits.

4. The petitioner was permitted to rely on the interim order mentioned in their argument, and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider this order while passing a speaking order. The court made it clear that the petitioner could present their case before the Appellate Authority, and the interim order should be taken into account during the appeal process.

5. In conclusion, the court disposed of the present petition, highlighting the importance of following the proper appeal procedure before seeking judicial intervention. The petitioner was directed to pursue their remedies through the Appellate Authority, ensuring that the delay in filing the appeal should not be a sole reason for rejection.

---