BharatTaxGST

M/S Aviation Management Sales Llc vs. The Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/22257/2022HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01051772202211 March 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV5 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; MS. KRUTHIKA RAGHAVAN, ADV. FOR R4

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14515 WP No. 22257 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 22257 OF 2022 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. AVIATION MANAGEMENT SALES LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 2916, CURTIS KING BOULEVARD, HANGER E19 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 034946, USA. ALSO AT: NO.27 JALAN SUNGAI CONGAK 32/51 F BUKIT RIMAU, 40460 SHAH ALAM SELANGOR MALAYSIA. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, (SOUTH EAST ASIA REPRESENTATIVE) MRS. SYAKILA RENU BINTI ABDULLAH …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110001. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14515 WP No. 22257 of 2022 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), MYSURU, S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARATHA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570011. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, WEST DIVISION-2, GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC TTMC BUS STAND COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU - 560070. 4. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 5. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALTAX, BENGALURU WEST COMMISSIONERATE, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC TTMC BUS STAND COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU - 560070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; MS. KRUTHIKA RAGHAVAN, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,03,71,781/- BEING THE INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND COMPENSATION CESS PAID BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017, BE REFUNDED TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THIS AMOUNT WAS REMITTED BY THE R4 TILL THE DATE (S) ON WHICH THE REFUND IS PAID TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14515 WP No. 22257 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo for withdrawal which reads as follows: "On the instructions of the Petitioner, the Advocate for the Petitioner most humbly submits on its behalf as follows:

1.

The above writ petition was filed challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 09.09.2020 passed by the 3rd Respondent in Form-RFD-06 and the subsequent Order-in- Appeal dated 04.10.2021 passed by the 2nd Respondent, by which both Respondents rejected the claim of the 4th Respondent (the Official Liquidator, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka) for refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax ('IGST' for short) and Compensation Cess amounting to Rs.11,03,71,781/- paid by the Petitioner in relation to an export of an aircraft made in the month of October 2018. Although the said amount was paid by the Petitioner, since it was ultimately remitted by the 4th Respondent to the credit of the Revenue on behalf of the Petitioner, the 4th Respondent filed the refund application as advised.

2.

The Petitioner submits that the 3rd Respondent rejected the claim of refund of the 4th Respondent on the ground that it is the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14515 Petitioner, and not the 4th Respondent, who had exported the goods. The subsequent Order-in-Appeal passed by the 2nd Respondent upheld the impugned Order-in-Original while leaving this aforesaid finding undisturbed.

3.

Aggrieved by the non-grant of refund to it despite the above finding that it had exported the goods, the Petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the same. However, in the Statement of Objections filed by the 1st to 3rd Respondents before this Hon'ble Court, this writ petition is opposed on the ground that since the impugned orders were passed rejecting the application for refund filed by the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner cannot challenge the said orders in this writ petition.

4.

This being the case, the Petitioner now seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the present writ petition while reserving liberty to file an application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for refund of the said amount of Rs.11,03,71,781/- admittedly paid by it, especially given that it is a settled position of law that the time period stated in Section 54 is merely directory and not mandatory. In any event, the entire period from the date on which the 4th Respondent filed the refund application on behalf of the Petitioner i.e., 12.03.2020, till the date of disposal of this writ petition ought to stand excluded as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act and in the unique facts and circumstances of this case and in the interests of justice and equity.

In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take this memo on record and pass orders HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14515 disposing off this writ petition as withdrawn while granting liberty to the Petitioner to file an application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for refund of Rs.11,03,71,781/- paid by it and to also direct the concerned Respondents to consider and expeditiously dispose off the said application to be filed by the Petitioner in accordance with law and without any reference to limitation, in the interests of justice and equity."

2.

In light of the same, petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to be pursued as is permissible in law. All contentions of both sides are kept open. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

MCR

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.