P&H HC Nixes Asst Commissioner's Order For Ignoring Direction To Hear Case On Merits, Calls For Strict Action Against Insubordination In CGST Hierarchy

The Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned an Assistant Commissioner's order for dismissing an application as time-barred, noting he overstepped his authority despite the Joint Commissioner's directive to consider it on merits. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma observed that “Assistant Commissioner, a subordinate officer has refused to examine the case on merits and again dismissed the application as time barred. Such an approach is the result of the virtual failure of system of hierarchy in the CGST.” Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with rectification of mistake or errors apparent from record. It provides that the authority who has issued any decision, order, summon, notice or any certificate may rectify any mistake apparent from record in such documents. The assessee/petitioner filed a refund application for ₹2,02,09,111, but it was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner because it was submitted after the two-year time limit set by the Circular dated 20.07.2021. The assessee filed an appeal, which was conditionally allowed by the Joint Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, Sewa Ram, reconsidered the application and stated that he had sent a letter to the Joint Commissioner, seeking clarification. The Joint Commissioner rejected the request, stating it was outside the scope of Section 161 of the CGST Act. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioner again rejected the refund application on 24.01.2024, citing it as time barred. The assessee has filed a petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The bench stated that the Assistant Commissioner seems to be asserting his authority over and above the order passed in appeal by the Joint Commissioner, who has already observed that the application has to be treated within time and has to be decided on merits. Further, the bench observed that the Assistant Commissioner, a subordinate officer has refused to examine the case on merits and again dismissed the application as time barred. Such an approach adopted by the subordinate officer is the result of the virtual failure of system of hierarchy in the CGST. “If subordinate officers do not comply with the appellate orders, it would be something sort of administrative chaos. Such officers are required to be dealt with by the Department in a strict manner, so that they may not create a precedent for others to start insubordination. It also reflects in general public faith in filing appeals, which would be wavered if the appellate orders are not complied with. Litigation is also forced unnecessarily before this Court. Such insubordination requires to be dealt with more strictness.” added the bench. In view of the above, the bench set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed the Commissioner to appoint another officer to deal with the refund application of the assessee. Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: J.S. Bedi Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Ajay Kalra Case Title: M/s Proxima Steel Forge Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and others Case Number: CWP.No.21975 of 2024 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

P&H HC Nixes Asst Commissioner's Order For Ignoring Direction To Hear Case On Merits, Calls For Strict Action Against Insubordination In CGST Hierarchy

Mehak Dhiman

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Dhiman

P&H HC Nixes Asst Commissioner's Order For Ignoring Direction To Hear Case On Merits, Calls For Strict Action Against Insubordination In CGST Hierarchy

Mehak Dhiman

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Dhiman

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers