Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WA NO. 691 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.915 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P(C) M/S. N.R. PATEL & CO.
AGED 45 YEARS PRESENTLY NRP PROJECTS (P) LTD., DESABANDHU PLAZA, 47, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, A,S,RAJESH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER - FINANCE, PIN - 600014 BY ADVS.
SIVANKUTTY S.
S.SURESH BABU (CHERUNNIYOOR) VANDANA RAVI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C) 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX PAYER SERVICE CIRCLE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, TAX PAYER SERVICE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER,KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 3 THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.691 of 2024 2 J U D G M E N T ============ Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The appellant herein impugns the judgment dated 27.03.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.915 of 2024.
In as much as the judgment of the learned Single Judge has gone into the factual aspects, we do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts yet again.
2. Briefly stated, the challenge before the learned Single Judge was to an order passed by the assessing authority under the KGST Act, requantifying the refund that was due to the appellant herein.
3. According to the appellant, the recomputation of the refund that was due to him, through Ext.P23 order dated 04.09.2023 that was impugned in the writ petition, was erroneous and it was under those circumstances, that he had approached the writ court for appropriate relief.
4. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had
W.A.No.691 of 2024 3 an alternate remedy under the statute and therefore, there was no justification for invoking the public law remedy by filing the writ petition. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
5. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterates the same submissions and urges us to examine the issue of refund on merits. We do not find any exceptional circumstances having been made out in the instant case that would necessitate the invocation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to determine a factual dispute We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE smm