SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35446

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 21506/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21506 OF 2025 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT (1), 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT WING A, WING B, GROUND TO 6TH FLOOR, HELIOS BUSINESS PARK, 150 OUTER RING ROAD, KADUBEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 103 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.AKBAR AMIN.

…PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI KUMAR HARSHAVARDHAN AND NAGAVENI SRI BHARATH JANARTHANAN, ADVOCATES)

Location:

High Court of Karnataka AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST COMMISSIONERATE, DIVISION-I TRAFFIC AND TRANSIT MANAGEMENT CENTRE, B.M.T.C. BUS STAND, HAL AIRPORT ROAD, DOMMALURU, BENGALURU – 560 071.

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU EAST, DIVISION - 8, TTMC, BTMC, DOMLUR, BENGALURU – 560 071.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION OR DIRECTION OR ORDER THEREBY DECLARING THAT INTEREST ON DELAYED REFUNDS UNDER SECTION 11BB OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 READ WITH SECTION 83 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1994 IS AUTOMATIC AND PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE AFTER EXPIRY OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL FILING OF THE REFUND APPLICATION TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE REFUND WITHOUT MAKING ANY APPLICATION TO THIS EFFECT; II) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, OR DIRECTION OR ORDER THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR SERVANTS, AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES TO FORTHWITH GRANT AND SANCTION INTEREST OF RS. 44,29,76,104 ON DELAYED REFUND SANCTIONED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2007 TO JUNE 2017, FROM THE DATE AFTER EXPIRY OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL FILING OF THE REFUND APPLICATION TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE REFUND.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of declaration or any other writ in the nature of declaration or direction or order thereby declaring that interest on delayed refunds under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is automatic and payable to the petitioner from the date after expiry of three months from the date of the original filing of the refund application till the date of actual payment of the refund without making any application to this effect;

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus, or direction or order thereby directing the Respondents, their servants, agents or representatives to forthwith grant and sanction interest of Rs.44,29,76,104 on delayed refund sanctioned to the petitioner for the period October 2007 to June 2017, from the date after expiry of three months from the date of the original filing of the refund application till the date of actual payment of the refund; and / or iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Court.”

2. Heard Sri Kumar Harshavardhan and Sri Bharath Janarthanan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal at the material on record will indicate that for the period October, 2007 to June, 2017, the petitioner filed refund claims, seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the period from March, 2009 to June, 2020, the petitioner received orders s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top