Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bt (India) Private Limited vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 March, 2022

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta, Neena Bansal Krishna

                          $~41
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 13968/2021
                                 BT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED                             ..... Petitioner
                                               Represented by:     Mr Tarun Gulati, Sr. Advocate
                                                                   with Mr Onkar Sharma, Advocate.

                                                     versus

                                 UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                           ..... Respondents
                                          Represented by:          Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC for UOI.
                                                                   Mr Ashok Kumar Arya, Sr.
                                                                   Standing Counsel with Mr
                                                                   Abhinav, Advocates for UOI.
                                                                   Mr Ashok Kumar Arya, Sr.
                                                                   Standing Counsel with Mr
                                                                   Abhinav Jagannathan, Advocates
                                                                   for R-2.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
                                         ORDER

% 24.03.2022

1. In the present petition, the petitioner claims that the petitioner is an exporter of support services to British Telecommunications PLC and other similar entities located outside India. The petitioner self assessed its output service as export of service as nil, which returns have not been disputed by the respondent by issuing a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Thus the self assessment of the petitioner for the output service having attained finality, for the input services the claim of the refund of the petitioner cannot be re-assessed claiming that Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 13968/2021 Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:25.03.2022 18:20:45 the petitioner is not an exporter of services.

2. The respondent raises the issue of maintainability of the present petition stating that an appeal lies against the order of rejection of the refund under Section 85 of the Finance Act. The respondent also claims that the Finance Act is not applicable to the services of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the claim of refund was rejected unilaterally by the respondent without following the principles of natural justice and affording a hearing to the petitioner. Hence there is no requirement of filing an appeal and the writ petition will be maintainable before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the parties will file the written submissions in respect of the legal issues raised in the present petition within four weeks along with the compilation of judgments relied upon.

5. List this petition on 18th May, 2022.

6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

MARCH 24, 2022 MK Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 13968/2021 Page 2 of 2 Signing Date:25.03.2022 18:20:45