Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ABB India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes – Respondent
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
a. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order No. GST/AP-10/2022- 23 dated 21.10.2023 for the period of February 2020 annexed at Annexure-A as being passed without any legal basis;
b. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order No.:JCCT/DGSTO- 06/RFD/186/LGSTO-075/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022 along with Endorsement dated 14.02.2022 for the period of February 2020 annexed at Annexure-B as being passed without any legal basis;
c. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus holding that the Petitioner is eligible to claim refund in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules;
d. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus holding that the Petitioner has rightly claimed refund in terms of Section 54 while submitting its refund application for excess payment of tax in Form GST RFD-01;
e. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.”
The court emphasized adherence to procedural due process in rejecting a refund application and allowing for appeal rights under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
The court held that a refund application filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation, and the applicant must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any reject....
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
The rejection of refund claims without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and the principles of natural justice, rende....
The court emphasized that orders passed by administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are required to stand or fall on their own and subsequent explanations by way of affidavit(s) cannot be permitt....
The rejection of a refund claim without a hearing violates principles of natural justice, necessitating remand for proper proceedings.
Procedural violations in tax adjudication require rectification to uphold the rights to refunds and interests, emphasizing the need for jurisdiction and fair hearing in administrative processes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
