TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elief(s):- "(i) the order dated the 21.05.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P 13) passed by the respondent no.2 dismissing the appeal without consideration of Foreign Trade Policy, Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG), Scheme and the statutory provisions contained in Section 54(1) of the Central/Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the Act) read with CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called the Rules) being contrary to the policy of the Government of India to promote export and also the statutory provisions contained in the Act, the Rules made thereunder and also the circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, New Delhi being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction be set aside and quashed. (ii) the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent authorities are of the view that petitioner is not entitled for refund of tax paid on capital goods, resultantly notice has been issued on 18.06.2023 followed by brief reasons. The petitioner had submitted explanation/reply to the notice dated 18.06.2023 on 28.06.2023. 3. Perusal of the reply to the notice, it is evident that he has quoted number of circulars insofar as claiming refund of tax paid on capital goods. However, the order dated 25.07.2023 to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of tax paid on capital goods has been passed without their being consideration of petitioner's reply, in particularly, various provisions including number of circulars. Therefore, prima facie adjudicating authority order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the guise of decision of the appellate authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Facts are not disputed. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether the adjudicating authority who is exercising quasi judicial function under the CGST Act is required to take note of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427.. Paragraph no. 40 reads as under:- "40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out below : (SCC pp. 510-12) "(a) In India the judicial trend has alway....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtant for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes t....