AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions, the petitioner has to pass orders within a week from the date of filing of a refund claim by the tax payer under Form RFD-01, where 90% of the claim to be refunded is decided. Thereafter, under RFD-04, the petitioner has to decide the refund of the balance 10%. 3. In so far as the scrutiny of the application for refund is concerned, it is governed by the circular issued which specifically states as to what are all the documents / sites, the officer should check before processing the refund claim. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that one of the refund claim made by Khan Traders was allotted to the petitioner during March, 2023. The said Khan Traders filed an online applicable under statutory form RFD-01 on 19.04.2023, claiming a refund of Rs. 69,01,127/-. Along with the claim, he also submitted various other documents. The petitioner on verifying the documents and after checking the ICEGATE site, granted refund under RFD-02 upo 90% of the total claim. Thereafter, under RFD-05, the balance 10% was also refunded. 5. The specific case of the petitioner is that he has passed the refund order in strict compliance with Rule 54 of the CGST Rules and the circular da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6)In this case, though high value refund claims were filed for 2 months (as detailed above) wherein Registration was given by deemed approval and the business activity was done only on one day during the month (31.03.2023) - March 23 Invoices, no doubts / queries were raised by the Officers who were having quiet good field experience. 7)The Refund claims were sanctioned with undue haste, without proper application of mind and without any due regards to statutory time limit of 7 days from the date of acknowledgement has been given for 90% amount sanction and 60 days for the balance 10% of the refund claimed". 7. In the light of the above findings that came out of the inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent since the petitioner has issued refund to a fake exporter without properly verifying the relevant details with undue haste and with malafide intention and thereby the petitioner has caused revenue loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 6,90,01,127/-. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that a charge memo has already been issued by the 2nd respondent dated 05.01.2024 to the petitioner. 8. The respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the TNGST Rules. The aforesaid documents are the required documents for granting refunds as per Circular No-1/2019-2020 dated 23.3.2020. A System-generated acknowledgement was issued to him under RFD-02. A provisional refund as per Rule 91(2) up to 90% of the total claim was issued on 24.04.2023, under RFD-04. Thereafter, RFD-05 payment order was passed on 09.05.2023, and the balance of 10% as issued vide RFD-06." 13. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also specifically listed the various documents / certificates filed online which has to be verified before passing orders on a refund. Annexure - A to the circular dated 23.03.2020 is extracted hereunder: "Anneure - A List of all statements / declarations / undertaking / certificates and other supporting documents to be provided along with the refund applications Sl. No. Type of Refund Declaration / Statement / Undertaking / Certificates to be filled online Supporting documents to be additionally uploaded 1 Refund of unutilized ITC on account of exports without payment of tax Declaration under second and third proviso to Section 54(3) Copy of GSTR-2A of the relevant period Undertaking in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank etc. 23. In Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 200, this Court explained: "18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem by the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned. Where the charges are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and in order that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enquiry or trial can not be a ground for quashing the suspension order, if the charges are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verified online. It is quite apparent that whatever documents / certificates / declarations / statements that have been provided under annexure - A was verified by the petitioner while passing orders for refund of the Input Tax Credit. A portal is specifically created only for this purpose and the officer is expected to go into the ICEGATE site and check the details of the EGM and shipping bill by keying in port name, shipping bill number and date. There is no dispute that the petitioner has followed this procedure. No where under the Act or under the circular, the petitioner was expected to verify the E-way bills physically. If the petitioner has to involve in this exercise, obviously he will not be able to process the application and pass orders within a period of seven (7) days. 19. The export invoices, shipping bills, ICEGATE, EPDMS that was verified by the petitioner is grouped by way of a tabular column as hereunder: "EXPORT INVOICES, SHIPPING BILLS, ICE :: GATE, EPDMS COMPARISON TABLE Sl. No. Invoice No. Value (INR) Invoice Page No. SB No. SB Page No. ICE Gate Page No. EPDMS Page No. 1 KT01 948,000.00 70 9144893 96 226 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moral turpitude or grave misconduct. 22. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondent. 23. The learned Government Advocate (Tax) submitted that the charge memo has already been issued to the petitioner and the departmental proceedings are underway. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the suspension order that was issued against another officer and which was put to challenge in W.P.No.8203 of 2024. The learned Government Advocate submitted that this Court was inclined the dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the charge memo has already been given. 24. The order that was brought to the notice of this Court will not apply to the facts of the present case since the ground that was taken in that writ petition was that no charge memo was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was kept on a continued suspension. This Court was informed that the charge memo has already been served on the petitioner therein and recording the same, that writ petition was dismissed. 25. That order will not become a precedent in the present case since, the ground that has been taken is compl....