TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed on remand for full reconsideration due to non-application of mind and natural justice violation</h1> <h3>CMP Euro Technoplast Pvt Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> The HC allowed the appeal by way of remand, finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider several grounds raised by the petitioner, ... Dismissal of petitioner's appeal - various grounds have not even been considered - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority was only one of the grounds raised by the Petitioner in support of the plea for refund. Apart from this ground, several grounds on merits were raised by the Petitioner, and these grounds have been transcribed in the impugned order. However, upon referring to the discussion, it is apparent that the Commissioner (Appeals) has addressed only one of the grounds, namely the ground based on the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority. None of the other grounds on merits have even been adverted to, much less considered or evaluated. This omission does suggest non- application of mind or, in any event, indicates that the Petitioner’s Appeal has not been properly evaluated. On this short ground, the impugned order warrants interference. Matter remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) (Respondent No. 4) for a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s Appeal against the orders dated 15 September 2022. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) should endeavour to dispose of this Appeal within three months of the uploading of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand. The Bombay High Court, per M.S. Sonak, J., heard a petition challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 24 February 2023, which dismissed the Petitioner's Appeal against orders dated 15 September 2022. The Petitioner contended that although multiple grounds were raised in the Appeal memo, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered only one-reliance on the Advance Ruling Authority's decision-and ignored the rest, amounting to 'non-application of mind.' The Respondent-State argued that an alternate remedy before the GST Tribunal exists, but the Tribunal was non-functional, justifying the present petition. The Court noted that while the impugned order listed all grounds (paragraphs 4.1 to 4.7), the Commissioner (Appeals) addressed only the Advance Ruling ground (paragraphs 7.1 to 7.4), neglecting other substantive grounds. This omission indicated improper evaluation of the Appeal. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision within three months, leaving all merits open for reconsideration. The Rule was made absolute without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
