TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that only one line order has been passed without any application of mind and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner. No reasons have been given for holding the reply to be unsatisfactory, and therefore, it is a case of nonapplication of mind. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also further submits that a similar writ petition i.e. CWP-16293-2024, titled as, "M/s Star Foods and Beverages vs. State of Punjab and others", this Court has issued notice of motion and the said case also, there has been a complete non-application of mind while passing the impugned order, as the order does not give reasons. 4. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in "Balaji Medical and Diagnostic Researc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver the supplies made prior to date of service agreement. (e) The taxpayer has invoiced its foreign entity, services like Commission Sales which is not mentioned/ explained in service agreement. 6. Thereafter, concerned authority has also noticed that compliance of CGST/HGST Act 2017 is imperative to ensure the legitimacy and eligibility of refund claims. It is further also observed and requested the petitioner to review the reasons provided for the rejection carefully and take appropriate steps to address any deficiencies or discrepancies identified. Option has also been granted to file appeal against the decision, if they were not satisfied. The petitioner, however, chose not to address to those discrepancies/deficiencies, especially....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of an appellate court while dealing with the issue of writ of Certiorari. High Courts should refrain from re-examining the evidence, particularly with regards to its sufficiency or adequacy. While exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Court must cause interference only when there is error of law, which requires correction and not in general, when there is error of fact. In Syed Yakoob's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed in Paragraph No. 7 as under:- "7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under A....