Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Merck Life Science Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks judicial remedies (Para 1 , 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim for igst refund based on erroneous payment (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding refund application legitimacy (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning against respondents' limitations on refund (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. judicial orders to set aside prior decisions and remand for action (Para 24) |
ORDER :
a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.3 vide Order No. 31/2024-25 dated 27.05.2024 in Annexure-B as bad in law.
c) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is retaining or withholding the IGST of Rs. 52,63,596/- is without authority of law and against the Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
e) Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.
In W.P.No.27261/2024, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a
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 established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
The filing of an application for refund in the prescribed form and manner stops the running of the limitation period, even if further documents or clarifications are sought by the proper officer.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of filing the application on the common portal should be considered as the date of filing the claim for refund, rejecting the content....
Voluntary payments made under a mistake are not subject to the limitation period for refund claims under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.
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 affirmed that an unlawful tax collection obligates the government to refund with interest, reinforcing the principle of unjust enrichment and constitutional mandates under Article 265.
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
