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) 440145

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CELEBRITY STRUCTURES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX – Respondent
WP 24053/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 24053 OF 2023 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

CELEBRITY STRUCTURES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY GOVERNED BY THE

COMPANIES ACT, 2013, AND

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT

NO. 810, BILWAPRIYA PLATINA APARTMENTS,

27TH MAIN ROAD, H.S.R LAYOUT, SECTOR 1,

BENGALURU - 560 102.

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS

DIRECTOR, SHRI. P. SURENDER REDDY.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

Digitally signed

by SOUTH DIVISION 5,

SHARADAVANI

B BENGALURU

Location: High A WING, 6TH FLOOR,

Court of

Karnataka KENDRIYA SADAN,

KORAMANGALA,

BENGALURU - 560 034.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX

(PREVENTION),

BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISISONERATE, CENTRAL

REVENUE BUILDING,

QUEENS ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (HPU)

BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRIJEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE REFUND CLAIM DTD 09/02/2023 BEARING ARN AA290223029829X (ANNEXURE-G2) WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN TIME AND THUS MUST BE SANCTIONED IN FULL AND ETC., 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 seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) Declaring that the refund claim dated 09.02.2023 bearing ARN AA290223029829X (Annexure G-2) was filed by the Petitioner in time and thus must be sanctioned in full;

(ii) Quashing the impugned order in Form GST RFD-06 dated 18.04.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent under Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, 2017, read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 (Annexure M), insofar as it rejects the refund of Rs.14,24,564/- that was rightly claimed by the Petitioner;

(iii) Quashing the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 bearing F.No.GEXCOM/TECH/MISC/2347/2023-CGST-RANGE-

ASD5-DIV-SD5-COMMRT-BENGALURU(S) and DIN No.20230757YV0000022876/2592 (Annexure R);

(iv) Condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the refund claim dated 09.02.2023 bearing ARN AA290223029829X (Annexure G-2);

In either case, (v) Directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith refund in cast the tax and interest to the tune of Rs. 14,24,564/- paid by the Petitioner along with the applicable interest thereon from the date of payment (07.02.2019) till the date(s) on which the said amount of Rs.14,24,564 is refunded to it; and (vi) passing such other or further orders including such orders as to costs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner filed refund applications on 17.02.2023, to which, respondent No.1 issued notice proposing to grant refund in favour of the petitioner by remitting the same to the electronic credit ledger instead of remitting in cash. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 03.04.2023 inter alia specifically stating that he has no objection to grant / sanction refund in its favour by way of remittance to the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner. However, subsequently, the part of the refund in a sum of Rs.14,24,564/- was rejected by respondent No.1 vide the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and the balance was sanctioned / paid in favour of the petitioner.

4. On 04.07.2023, the petitioner sought for rectification of the order dated 18.04.2023 to the extent of rejection of the refund claim and the said rectification request was also rejected by the respondent No.1 vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2023. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 at Annexure - M, the peti

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