TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 4 (Exhibit "A"); (b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents to forthwith sanction the refund of Rs. 11,69,07,326 as claimed by the Petitioner along with the appropriate interest; (c) pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents by an interim order and injunction to forthwith deposit an amount of Rs. 11,69,07,326 in this Hon'ble Court with a liberty to the Petitioner to withdraw the same, without prejudice to the Petitioner's right of refund of the actual amount along with appropriate interest; (d) for interim relief in terms of prayer (c) above; and (e) for costs of the Petition; (f) for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case." 3. The petitioner is engaged inter alia in providing engineering consulting services to its group entities l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly erred in passing the impugned order, inasmuch as, the Assistant Commissioner in fact has sat in appeal over the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11 October 2022, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed on merits. It is his submission that on the same reasons the Assistant Commissioner who is an authority lower in hierarchy and certainly bound by the orders which were passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) cannot take such a position in law and reject the claim as raised by the petitioner on the same grounds which in fact were subject matter of consideration in the appeal proceedings. It is submitted that this would not only amount to gross administrative indiscipline but also result in subordinate authorities, not honouring the orders passed by the higher authorities, and more particularly the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), which were accepted and not assailed. Mr. Shah in making this submission has placed reliance on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Globus Petroadditions Pvt. Ltd. VS. Union of India 2022(64) G.S.T.L. 54 (Bom.) whereby in similar circumstances the Division Bench ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ober 2022 of the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) having taken place, is not in dispute. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), would indicate that all contentions of the department in regard to FIRCs in relation to single and multiple GSTIN were taken into consideration which are findings of fact as recorded on correlation of the entire material. The said observations read thus:- "6.4 The appellant company is having multiple GSTINs for 5 different states including the present case of Maharashtra GSTN No. 27AAACH0055K2ZQ & holding four bank A/c Nos. 006193742- 004/514/515.& 901 with HSBC Bank, Mumbai main branch, wherein foreign inward remittance is received against invoices raised by multiple GETINs. With reference to the foreign inward remittances towards export of services made by the appellant company through their 5 different GSTINs for the period April-October, 2020, the above Bank authorities have issued confirmation letter dtd. 11.03.2022, with statement showing GSTIN wise details of invoice number and date, FIRC number and date & foreign currency realisation thereof in USD/INR wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), and in the absence of any stay to the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), grants benefit of the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11 October 2022 to the petitioner. 11. Mr. Shah, in our opinion, is correct in placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Globus Petroadditions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in which in similar circumstances the Court has observed that the Assistant Commissioner is required to comply with the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and in taking such view the Assistant Commissioner would not have refused to comply with the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. In the present case, at the time when the impugned orders were passed, there are no decision of whatsoever to assail the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Appeals in exercising the review power under Section 112(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court are well settled. In Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991(55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) the Supreme had directed the department to a....