TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Validity and Applicability of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules
Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, introduced by Notification dated 09.10.2018, clarifies that persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports should not have received supplies exempted under certain notifications, except for capital goods under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme. The petitioner, being an EOU, imports raw materials duty-free and also procures inputs domestically, paying IGST on exports and claiming refunds accordingly.
Court's Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner challenges the validity of Rule 96(10) and its applicability to its transactions. However, the Court refrained from deciding on the validity or retrospective effect of the Rule, keeping those issues open for adjudication by the proper authority.
Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner claimed refunds of IGST paid on exported goods, but the Revenue alleged that such refunds were wrongly claimed in violation of Rule 96(10), as the petitioner had received supplies on which suppliers had availed exemption notifications. The Court observed that this factual and legal issue was not properly adjudicated due to procedural lapses.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: While the petitioner argued against the Rule's validity and applicability, the Court did not address these points substantively, focusing instead on procedural compliance.
Conclusion: The issue of validity and applicability of Rule 96(10) remains open and must be adjudicated after following the proper statutory procedure.
Issue 2: Procedural Compliance in Passing the Impugned Order under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act
Legal Framework: Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act provide the procedure for determination and recovery of tax not paid or erroneously refunded. Section 73 deals with cases without fraud or wilful misstatement and mandates issuance of a show cause notice specifying the amount claimed, an opportunity to represent, and then issuance of a demand order. Section 74 deals with cases involving fraud or wilful misstatement. Rule 142 of the CGST Rules prescribes the format for such notices and orders.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 was issued without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 73. The notices issued to the petitioner were not in the form of show cause notices; they did not specify the amount of refund claimed to be wrongly availed nor the interest or penalty proposed. The impugned order directly concluded that the petitioner had wrongly claimed a refund of Rs. 6,88,11,571/- and imposed interest and penalty without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Key Evidence and Findings: Communications dated 19.10.2022 and 07.11.2023 requested information from the petitioner regarding IGST refunds and related documents but did not constitute proper show cause notices. The petitioner complied by furnishing documents, but the Revenue proceeded to pass the order without issuing a formal notice and providing an opportunity for representation.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized that statutory provisions prescribing a particular procedure must be strictly followed. The failure to issue a proper show cause notice and to consider the petitioner's representations rendered the impugned order non-compliant with the law.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the procedural lapses or the legal principle that statutory procedure must be followed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim or Rule 96(10) applicability due to this procedural defect.
Conclusion: The impugned order is quashed and set aside for failure to comply with the mandatory procedure under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Issue 3: Retrospective or Prospective Effect of Rule 96(10) and Continuation of Adjudication after its Omission
Court's Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submissions regarding whether the Rule applies retrospectively or prospectively and whether proceedings can continue after the Rule's omission from 08.10.2024. However, these issues were not adjudicated, as the Court found it unnecessary to decide them in light of the procedural infirmities in the impugned order.
Conclusion: These issues remain open for determination by the proper authority after adherence to the statutory procedure.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The Court held:
"The procedure contemplated under Section 73 of the Act is therefore clearly set out contemplating a show cause notice to be issued as to why the amount should not be paid by the person, who has either not paid the tax or the tax paid is less or erroneously refunded or who has availed the input tax credit or utilised the same, and after affording an opportunity, to make a representation the proper officer shall determine the amount of tax along with the interest and penalty, due from such a person by issuing an order."
"Admittedly, the aforesaid procedure as contemplated is not availed into as it is evident that the notices which are issued by the petitioner are not in the form of show cause as neither the amount has been specified in the notice nor it is clearly indicative that a particular amount shall be liable to be recovered from the petitioner as the amount which was already availed by way of refund."
"Had the petitioner being issued a show cause notice as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 73, and determination of this show cause notice pursuant to the representation/stand adopted by the petitioner, all the issues pertaining to the applicability of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules 2017 would have been open for consideration by the concerned officer."
"In absence of adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2017 to be read along with Rules 2017, we are satisfied that the necessary procedure to be followed before the demand is raised and the recovery is ordered, has not been adhered with."
"Without touching into the other issues which are raised in the petition particularly the validity of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as well as its applicability in the case of the petitioner and by keeping this issue open, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 by giving liberty to the Revenue to follow the procedure under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act of 2017, to be initiated by the issuance of show cause notice pursuant to which the petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity to submit its representation, which shall be subjected to adjudication by the proper officer in accordance with law."
Core principles established include the mandatory adherence to statutory procedure for demand and recovery of tax under the CGST Act, and the necessity of issuing a proper show cause notice specifying amounts and grounds before passing an order of recovery. The Court preserved the petitioner's right to challenge the validity and applicability of Rule 96(10) at the appropriate stage after due process.
Final determinations:
TaxTMI 
