2024 (2) TMI 763 - HC - GST

Manufacturer Wins GST Refund Challenge: Procedural Flaws Invalidate Tax Revision Order, Demands Transparent Reconsideration

Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Authorised Signatory, Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao Versus Joint Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

HC quashed a tax revision order involving GST refund for passenger car manufacturing. The court found procedural irregularities in the order's reasoning, ... Scope of revision proceedings - refund order warrant revision or not - levy of interest under the impugned order was contrary to Section 50(3) of the TNGST Act or not - HELD THAT:- Nonetheless, the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that it travels beyond the scope of revision proceedings under Section 108 of the TNGST Act. No findings were recorded with regard to this objection in the impugned order. The petitioner also contended that interest was not leviable under Section 50(3) of the TNGST Act and that penalty should not be levied in the facts and circumstances. While these contentions were noticed in the impugned order, the respondent did not engage with these contentions and record reasons for not accepting the same. For such reason, the order impugned herein warrants interference. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter issue a speaking order. This exercise shall be completed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. Issues involved: Challenge to order in revision proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Summary:Issue 1 - Revision Proceedings Scope:The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and supply of passenger cars, filed a refund application due to accumulation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) as GST was paid at a higher rate on inputs. The revision order was challenged on the grounds that it exceeded the scope of Section 108 of the TNGST Act as the refund claim was made under the law applicable at the time of the application.Issue 2 - Interest and Penalty Imposition:The petitioner contested the levy of interest under Section 50(3) of the TNGST Act and the imposition of penalty, arguing that the conclusions lacked supporting reasons and that the refund claim was made in good faith under the law. The impugned order did not provide reasons for the interest and penalty levied.In response, the Additional Government Pleader argued that the scope of Section 108 of the TNGST Act allowed for revision proceedings in this case. Referring to the amended Rule 89(5) upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, it was contended that the revision order should not be interfered with.The petitioner's objections regarding the revision order exceeding its scope, non-leviability of interest under Section 50(3), and unjust penalty imposition were not adequately addressed in the impugned order. Therefore, the court quashed the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the respondent to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue a speaking order within two months.The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.