The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. [CWP-5822-2023, order dated February 06, 2026] held that rejection of the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay in receipt of export remittances under Rule 96A(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”) through a mere communication without passing a reasoned order after consideration of facts and without affording opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law, and therefore the impugned memo rejecting the application was set aside and the matter was remitted to the authority for fresh consideration.
Facts:
Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt Ltd (“the Petitioner”) exported services and sought condonation of delay in receipt of remittance in convertible foreign exchange in terms of Rule 96A(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Petitioner submitted an application before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner requesting condonation of delay in receipt of export proceeds.
Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. (“the Respondent”) rejected the Petitioner’s request through a communication dated February 06, 2023, stating that the application had been considered and that there was no satisfactory ground for seeking condonation of delay, and therefore the application stood rejected.
The Petitioner contended that there had been no consideration whatsoever of the grounds raised by the Petitioner, and further submitted that there is no statutory time limit for seeking condonation of delay or for receipt of export remittances under the statute, and that the authority ought to have been cognizant of the relevant period during which COVID-19 pandemic disruptions had occurred.
The Respondent contended that the application had been examined and rejected since no satisfactory grounds existed for condonation of delay, as indicated in the communication sent by the Department.
Aggrieved by the rejection of the condonation request by way of a mere communication, without passing a formal reasoned order and without due consideration of the facts and grounds raised, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a writ petition seeking setting aside of the communication dated February 06, 2023.
Issue:
Whether rejection of an application for condonation of delay in receipt of export remittances under Rule 96A(1)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017 through a mere communication without passing a reasoned order is sustainable in law?
Held:
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-5822-2023 held as under:
- Observed that, a perusal of the impugned order dated February 06, 2023 indicated that the same was merely a communication and intimation of an order purportedly passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner rejecting the petitioner’s application or representation.
- Noted that, the said communication was sent by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (GST) on behalf of the Commissioner and stated that: “In this regard, you are hereby intimated that your application was perused by Worthy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and has been filed on 23.01.2023 observing that matter was heard on last date and there is no satisfactory ground for seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, your application has been rejected.”
- Observed that, when the Department was called upon to produce the actual order allegedly passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the original record was produced before the Court.
- Noted that, learned counsel for the Respondents was unable to deny that no order as such had been passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, and that only internal notes dated January 24, 2023 and January 23, 2023 existed stating that there was no satisfactory ground for condonation of delay.
- Observed that, it was apparent that no order had been passed in accordance with law after considering the facts, circumstances and issues involved and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and held that, such action by the authority without a proper order reflecting consideration of the facts and circumstances is unsustainable in law.
- Directed that, the memo dated February 06, 2023 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to consider the issue afresh and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
Our Comments:
The judgment reiterates the requirement that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must pass a reasoned order after due consideration of facts and after granting opportunity of hearing before rejecting an application affecting rights of a taxpayer. The High Court emphasised that the impugned rejection was merely a communication sent by the Department stating that the application had been rejected, without any formal order reflecting application of mind by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
Relevant Provisions:
Rule 96A(1)(b) of the CGST Rules
“96A. Export of goods or services under bond or Letter of Undertaking.-
(1) Any registered person availing the option to supply goods or services for export without payment of integrated tax shall furnish, prior to export, a bond or a Letter of Undertaking in FORM GST RFD-11 to the jurisdictional Commissioner, binding himself to pay the tax due along with the interest specified under sub-section (1) of section 50 within a period of –
(a) fifteen days after the expiry of three months or such further period as may be allowed by the Commissioner, from the date of issue of the invoice for export, if the goods are not exported out of India; or
(b) fifteen days after the expiry of one year, or the period as allowed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) including any extension of such period as permitted by the
Reserve Bank of India, whichever is later, from the date of issue of the invoice for export, or such further period as may be allowed by the Commissioner, if the payment of such services is not received by the exporter in convertible foreign exchange or in Indian rupees, wherever permitted by the Reserve Bank of India.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
