DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPT OF REVENUE AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that while writ petitions are ordinarily not entertained against orders in original, they can be entertained to prevent miscarriage of justice if the AO fails to record reasons for disagreeing with past decisions. In this case, the AO noted the petitioner's submission about previous favorable decisions but provided no reasons for his disagreement. Although the AO claimed the petitioner failed to furnish additional information, he was obligated to explain why the submitted documents were insufficient and why further documents were necessary, especially when similar documents had led to past approvals. Furthermore, the AO drew an adverse inference regarding the Chartered Accountant's certificate due to a discrepancy, despite the petitioner providing a reconciliation statement explaining it. The Court found that the AO's conduct, in rejecting the claim without considering the explanation and without assigning reasons, indicated bias and prejudice. Consequently, the Court set aside the order in original and remanded the matter for fresh decision. Given the perceived bias of the AO who passed the impugned order, the Commissioner of Service Tax was directed to allot the matter to another competent officer for a fresh decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, DBOI Global Service Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 12, 2012, which rejected its refund claim for the period April 2011 to June 2011. The petitioner's grievance was that the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim without providing reasons for differing from previous decisions by the AO and the Commissioner (Appeals) that allowed similar refund claims for earlier periods. The revenue contended that a writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal. They also argued that the petitioner failed to produce additional documents despite opportunities and that a Chartered Accountant's certificate was suspect due to discrepancies. The AO had noted a discrepancy between the CA certificate and other documents, concluding the certificate was issued in connivance with the petitioner.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal, and if so, under what circumstances? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the refund claim without providing reasons for disagreeing with previous favorable decisions for similar claims, especially when the petitioner had submitted reconciliation statements explaining discrepancies? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the AO's order was liable to be quashed because it failed to record reasons for disagreeing with prior decisions allowing similar refund claims. They relied on the principle that an AO cannot arbitrarily differ from higher authorities' decisions without justification. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the alternate remedy of appeal. They also contended that the petitioner failed to produce necessary documents despite opportunities and that the Chartered Accountant's certificate was unreliable due to discrepancies, leading the AO to conclude it was issued in connivance with the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10327 OF 2012 DBOI Global Service Private Limited a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Logitech Park, M.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 072. ..Petitioner. V/s. 1) The Union of India, through the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2) The Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai II, having his office at 4th floor, Central Excise Building, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. 3) The Deputy Commissioner Service Tax, Division-V, having his office at 5th Floor, CGO, Complex CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 012. ..Respondents. 1/6
Mr. Prakash Shah with Prasad Paranjpe with Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kantharia with N.V. Kalantri for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 1ST NOVEMBER, 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) 1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition is filed to challenge the order in original dated 12th September, 2012 whereby the refund claim of the petitioner for the period from April, 2011 to June, 2011 has been rejected. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the impugned order dated 12th September, 2012 even after recording the submission of the petitioner that various similar refund claims filed by the petitioner for the period from June, 2009 to March, 2010 have been allowed by the A.O. and even the Commissioner (Appeals) has held to the effect that the petitioner is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit and entitled to claim refund of tax paid on the services enlisted therein, the A.O. has 2/6
failed to record any reasons as to why he differs with the aforesaid decision of the A.O. / Commissioner (A) and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. On behalf of the revenue, it is contended that firstly, in view of the alternate remedy of appeal being available, the Writ Petition ought not to be entertained. Secondly, it is contended that in spite of several opportunities given to produce additional documents, the petitioner has failed to produce those documents and, therefore, the assessing officer was justified in passing the impugned order. Thirdly, it is contended in para 22 of the order in original ('OIO') the A.O., after noticing the discrepancy in the C.A. certificate and the documents furnished by the petitioner has recorded a finding that the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in connivance with the petitioner cannot be accepted and hence the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 5. This Court in the case of BNP Paribas India Solution Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India and Anr. [Writ Petition No.9857 of 2012] decided on 18th October, 2012 while observing that ordinarily writ petition is not entertained against an order in original passed by the A.O., has held that if the A.O. fails to record the reasons for 3/6
disagreeing with the decision of the A.O. for the past period, then, to prevent the miscarriage of justice, the writ petition can be entertained. 6. In the present case, the A.O. in the impugned order has noted the argument of the petitioner that similar claims of the petitioner have been allowed in the past by the A.O. as also the Commissioner (A), but does not give a single reason to why he disagrees with the earlier decisions of the A.O. and the Commissioner (A). According to the A.O., in spite of repeated adjournments, the petitioner has failed to furnish the additional information called for by the A.O. Assuming that the petitioner has failed to furnish additional information, it was obligatory on the part of the A.O. to record a finding as to why the documents furnished by the petitioner are not sufficient to allow the claim of the petitioner and why additional documents are necessary, especially when on the basis of similar documents furnished by the petitioner in the past, the claims have been allowed by the A.O. as also the Commissioner (A).
Apart from the above, in view of discrepancy in the amount certified by the C.A. and the documents furnished by the petitioner, the A.O. has drawn adverse inference to the effect that the certificate issued by the C.A. is in connivance with the petitioner and is 4/6
false. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has explained the above discrepancy by filing reconciliation statements before the A.O. much prior to the passing of the impugned order in original by the A.O. In spite of the specific explanation given by the assesse, the impugned order has been passed without considering the reconciliation statement submitted by the petitioner. 8. The above conduct of the A.O. in arriving at a conclusion that the certificate issued by the C.A. is false, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner and without assigning any reasons, clearly shows that the A.O. is biased against the petitioner and bent upon rejecting the claim of the petitioner without even considering the merits of the claim put forth by the petitioner. Moreover, the conduct of the A.O. in seeking to justify his order even after it is brought to the notice of the counsel that unless there are compelling reasons, the A.O. cannot disagree with the order of the Commissioner (A) clearly shows that the A.O. has totally biased and prejudiced mind in the matter. It is well established in law that no one can act in judicial capacity if his conduct gives ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind or impartially. In the present case, we have a reasonable apprehension that the A.O. who has passed the impugned order does not have open mind and, therefore, cannot pass order 5/6
impartially. 9. In these circumstances, we set aside the order in original dated 12th September, 2012 and remand the matter back for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. Since the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, who has passed the impugned order has a prejudiced and biased mind in the matter, we direct the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II to allot the present matter to another competent officer other than the officer who has passed the impugned order so that fresh order is passed on merits and in accordance with law. 10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) 6/6
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kallu Cable vs. The Commissioner State Goods And Service TaxUttarakhand · 5 Nov 2026
- Jishu Suklabaidya vs. The Union Of INDIA And 16 Ors.Gauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sun Shine Metal Works vs. State Of U.P And AnotherAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Bansal Sanitary Store vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Princess Girls Collection vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 4 Nov 2026
