This Court would not like to examine the factual aspects of the case with all the calculations to find out as to what extent the petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement. There is a complete procedure provided in detail with percentage to determine the amount to which an applicant may be entitled to the reimbursement. Let that matter be examined by the authority first after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Refund —In terms of Scheme of Budgetary Support —– The petitioner challenged order dated 07.08.2018, whereby the claim for refund of the tax, in terms of Scheme of Budgetary Support has been partially rejected. Refund of Rs. 43,84,140/- was claimed, however, claim to the extent of Rs. 25,36,705/- was rejected, though balance was allowed. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the claim was rejected without assigning any reason and also without affording any opportunity of hearing. The counsel for the respondents submitted that there is alternative remedy of appeal available against the order impugned. The court observed that the petitioner in pre GST era was availing exemption for each of its units independently in terms of exemption Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010. The Government of India came out with a Scheme as notified on 05.10.2017, which provided for budgetary support to the existing eligible manufacturing units operating in some of the States including the State of J&K. The court further observed that it cannot be disputed that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed unless specifically barred. Rules of natural justices are not always part of the statute or the rules framed there under. The court relied on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Canara Bank and others. vs. Debasis Das and others, Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and another and S. P. Malhotra vs. Punjab National Bank and others.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned order, as far as it relates to rejection of the amount of reimbursement claimed by the petitioner with a direction to respondent to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing.
This Court would not like to examine the factual aspects of the case with all the calculations to find out as to what extent the petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement. There is a complete procedure provided in detail with percentage to determine the amount to which an applicant may be entitled to the reimbursement. Let that matter be examined by the authority first after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Refund —In terms of Scheme of Budgetary Support —– The petitioner challenged order dated 07.08.2018, whereby the claim for refund of the tax, in terms of Scheme of Budgetary Support has been partially rejected. Refund of Rs. 43,84,140/- was claimed, however, claim to the extent of Rs. 25,36,705/- was rejected, though balance was allowed. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the claim was rejected without assigning any reason and also without affording any opportunity of hearing. The counsel for the respondents submitted that there is alternative remedy of appeal available against the order impugned. The court observed that the petitioner in pre GST era was availing exemption for each of its units independently in terms of exemption Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010. The Government of India came out with a Scheme as notified on 05.10.2017, which provided for budgetary support to the existing eligible manufacturing units operating in some of the States including the State of J&K. The court further observed that it cannot be disputed that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed unless specifically barred. Rules of natural justices are not always part of the statute or the rules framed there under. The court relied on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Canara Bank and others. vs. Debasis Das and others, Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and another and S. P. Malhotra vs. Punjab National Bank and others.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned order, as far as it relates to rejection of the amount of reimbursement claimed by the petitioner with a direction to respondent to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing.