High Court dismisses writ petition challenging tax refund denial under GST Act; directs petitioner to appeal to Appellate Authority

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking relief for quashing the Assistant Commissioner's decisions rejecting tax refund applications under Section 54 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that orders under Section 107 (1) of the GST Act are appealable, directing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy by approaching the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within three weeks, with the Court instructing the Appellate Authority to expedite the decision-making process, aiming for resolution within six months from the appeal filing date.

---

---

Issues:

1. Refund of tax under Section 54 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Rejection of refund applications by Assistant Commissioner Goods and Services Tax.
3. Writ petition seeking relief for quashing impugned orders and commanding assessment of refund claim.
4. Preliminary objection raised regarding appealability of decisions/orders under Section 107 (1) of GST Act.
5. Dismissal of writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:

The petitioner had applied for a tax refund under Section 54 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the Assistant Commissioner Goods and Services Tax rejected the applications multiple times. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition seeking relief to quash the impugned orders and command the assessment of the refund claim for specific periods.

The State's counsel raised a preliminary objection, citing Section 107 (1) of the GST Act, which makes every order passed by an adjudicating authority appealable. The Court acknowledged the validity of this argument, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority for further recourse.

Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel assured the Court that an appeal would be filed within three weeks. In response, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to expedite the decision-making process, preferably resolving the appeal within six months from the date of filing. This directive aimed to ensure a timely resolution of the petitioner's appeal and subsequent refund claim assessment.

---