Adboulevard Media Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner (Allahabad High Court)
Date: November 24, 2025
Subject Matter
GST Appellate Authority's Refund Rejection Order Deemed Perverse for Non-Application of Mind
Summary
The Allahabad High Court found the appellate authority's order rejecting a GST refund application to be perverse due to non-application of mind, the inclusion of irrelevant information, and the failure to consider a relevant circular. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the appellate officer's misleading affidavit and has directed the officer to file a better affidavit, while contemplating proceedings for criminal contempt.
Summary of Facts and Dispute:
- Impugned Action: The proper officer rejected a refund application, which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority in an order dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the tax period April 2024 to June 2024.
- Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the appellate order rejected the refund without providing proper reasons, contained copy-pasted paragraphs relating to different tax periods (October 2024 to January 2025) and other parties, and failed to consider the petitioner's detailed reply.
- Core Question of Law: Whether the appellate authority's order, which allegedly incorporated irrelevant information, failed to demonstrate proper consideration of facts and applicable circulars, and was based on a misleading affidavit, is perverse and legally sustainable for rejecting a GST refund application under Section 54.
Key Legal Issues & Findings:
Non-Application of Mind and Inclusion of Irrelevant Content in Appellate Order
The Court, in examining the appellate order and the officer's conduct, made the following observations:
- Irrelevant Information Included: The impugned appellate order contained details pertaining to a different tax period (October 2024 to January 2025) and facts relating to another party, despite the appeal specifically concerning the period April 2024 to June 2024.
- Improper Quotation of Proper Officer's Report: The appellate authority merely reproduced the proper officer's entire report, which covered two tax periods, without demonstrating specific application or analysis relevant to the disputed period under appeal, indicating a clear lack of due consideration.
**Absence of
Ruling:
- Outcome: The appellate order dated 01.07.2025 is implicitly found to be perverse and unsustainable on the grounds of non-application of mind and the inclusion of extraneous material. The Court is contemplating referring the matter for criminal contempt proceedings against the appellate officer.
- Directions: Respondent No.1 (the appellate officer) is directed to file a better personal affidavit within two weeks, explaining his conduct and addressing the deficiencies identified by the Court. In the event of non-compliance or failure to file a satisfactory affidavit, the officer shall appear in person on the next fixed date.
- Liberty: The Court has reserved the liberty to place the matter before the appropriate Bench dealing with criminal contempt for issuing notice to Respondent No.1, given the officer's conduct in passing a perverse order and filing a misleading affidavit.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Commissioner of State GST and Secretary of Finance, Government of U.P. as respondent nos. 3 & 4, respectively, to the writ petition during the course of the day.
Notice need not be issued to the said respondents as learned CSC has accepted notice on their behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State – respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the refund application has been rejected by the Proper Officer without assigning any proper reason (Annexure No. 2, Page 38-42), against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, in which the appellate authority affirmed the order passed by the Proper Officer. He further submits that the impugned appellate order reflects that only two paragraphs of the internal page of the impugned order relate to the petitioner and the rest of the paragraphs have been quoted with respect to some other party. Thereafter, again the reply of the petitioner has been quoted and again, some other issue with respect to some other party has been copy-paste in the impugned order and on that basis, the impugned order has been passed. Specific pleadings, in this regard, have been made in paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition.
In view of the above, let the Officer concerned, who has passed the impugned appellate order, file his personal affidavit by the next date fixed explaining his conduct in passing the impugned order.
The respondent nos. 3 & 4 are also directed to file their personal affidavits by the next date fixed spelling out the conduct of the Officer concerned, who has passed the impugned appellate order.
List again as fresh on 10.12.2025.
1. Personal affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent no.1 is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the description of respondent no.4 during course of the day.
3. Personal affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 in compliance of earlier order of this Court stating in paragraph 6 that no copy-paste method has been used while passing the impugned order.
4. A perusal of impugned order indicates that the matter which does not pertain to the disputed period(for the period from October, 2024 to January, 2025), has also been quoted, whereas the disputed period is from April, 2024 to June, 2024. Prima facie, it appears that the finding has been recorded on the basis of period from October, 2024 to January, 2025.
5. In view of above, let respondent No.1 file better affidavit, in absence thereof, he shall appear in person and explain his conduct on the next date fixed.
Time Extension Application
1. In the event, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 do not comply with the earlier order of this court, they shall appear in person on the next date fixed.
2. Time extension application is disposed of accordingly.
3. List the matter on 17.12.2025 as fresh.
1. Three personal affidavits have been filed, which are taken on record.
2. At the request of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, put up tomorrow at 10 A.M. for further hearing.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned ACSC.
2. On 16.12.2025 two personal affidavits on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 4 have been filed. Paragraph nos. 5 to 10 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 read as under:
“5. That it is very humbly submitted that the refund application under Section 54 of the petitioner was rejected by the proper officer vide its order dated 28.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the appeal number AD0903250422495/2025 for the period of April 2024 to June 2024 for the dispute of refund before the deponent/appellate authority.
6. That the deponent vide its letter dated 30.04.2025 directed the proper officer to send a detail report in respect of rejection of refund order dated 28.12.2024. The Proper Officer vide its letter dated 17.05.2025 sent a detail report in respect of one period relating to April 2024 to June 2024 and the other period relating to October 2024 to January 2025o f the petitioner dealer. The refund for the period April 2024 to June 2024 was under consideration in the abovementioned appeal and the matter of refund for the period October 2024 to January 2025 was not for consideration by the appellate authority/deponent and, the period (October 2024 to January 2025) has not been considered by the deponent in order dated 01.07.2025, hence, it is submitted that in the impugned order, neither the facts of some other party nor some other tax period has been considered.
7. That the appeal filed by the dealer was decided after considering the report of the proper officer as well as the written submission filed against the report supplied to the appellant. Since the proper officer had submitted a detailed report regarding the claim of refund in respect of two tax period one of April 2024 to June, 2024 and second of October 2024 to January 2025, the deponent in its order reproduced the whole report sent by the proper officer but while dismissing the appeal the factual position has been considered only in respect of claim of refund for the tax period April 2024 to June 2024.
8. That it is very humbly submitted that the deponent has passed the order after considering the grounds of appeal, report of the adjudicating authority, reply of the petitioner dealer and material available on the record and no copy-paste method has been used by the deponent in passing his impugned order dated 01.07.2025. The deponent after considering all relevant facts and applying judicial mind decided the present refund matter.
9. That the petitioner dealer has not produced contract copy which is mandatory as per Circular No.230/24/2024-GST issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing dated 10.09.2024. The appeal was dismissed after considering the abovementioned Circular. A copy of the CBIC Circular No.230/24/2024-GST dated 10.09.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this personal affidavit.
10. That the issue was related to the refund on export of service-matters in which the deponent asked for the report from the adjudicating authority in which the adjudicating authority submitted its report on 17.05.2025 which was served to the petitioner and opportunity to rebut the findings was provided to the petitioner. The reply submitted by the appellant has also been incorporated in the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the deponent.”
3. From a perusal of the affidavit it has categorically been mentioned in paragraph no.9 that after due consideration of the circular dated 10.9.2025 the order has been passed.
4. The impugned order after quoting report of proper officer reads as under:
5. On the pointed query to the learned Additional Advocate General as to whether in the impugned order the word ‘on consideration’ can be find, he submits that the officer who has passed the order has poor understanding and merely quoted the report of the proper officer.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order no word about the circular has been mentioned except the quotation of the report signed by the appropriate officer.
7. This shows the functioning of the GST Department. The officers has courage not only to pass the perverse order but filed his personal affidavit trying to mislead the Court stating that after due consideration the order has been passed.
7. Despite time being granted on two occasions to file better affidavit but the respondent no. 1 has filed his personal affidavit trying to mislead the Court.
8. In view of the above, let the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench dealing with criminal contempt on 20.1.2026 for issuing notice to the respondent no. 1.
9. After the aforementioned order has been dictated in the open Court, learned Additional Advocate General makes a request that as last opportunity two weeks time may be provided to file better affidavits of the respondent no. 1.
10. As prayed list for further hearing on 6.1.2026.