M/S Nandi Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA - Karnataka High Court, 16 December 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54066 WP No. 34785 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34785 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S NANDI ENTERPRISES, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 1535/11, K- 30, VANI VILAS MAIN ROAD, OLD AGRAHARA, MYSURU, KARNATAKA – 570 004. GST NO. 29AXDPG6252A1ZT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. CHITTAJIT G. S/O GNANASHANKAR S. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJEEV CHANNAPPA NULVI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX LAKSHMIPURAM DIVISION, MYSURU, S.1 AND S.2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 011. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, CHAMUNDIPURAM RANGE, LAKSHMIPURAM DIVISION, S.1 AND S.2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 011. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54066 WP No. 34785 of 2025 4. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS (CBIC) REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 5. INDIAN CUSTOMS ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE GATEWAY, 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER VIDE ORDER NO. MYS-EXCUS-000-LD-AC-RJ- REFUND/SO/11-2025-26 DATED 21.08.2025 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNX-D) AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order vide Order No.MYS-EXCUS-000-LD-AC-RJ-REFUND/SO/ 2025-26 dated 21.08.2025 by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-D). b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to direct the Respondent authorities to sanction and disburse refund of IGST along with applicable interest u/s 56 of the CGST Act, 2017. (Annexure-D). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54066 c) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and d) Direct the Respondents to award the costs of this Writ Petition.”

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

A perusal of material on record will indicate that the 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 23.07.2025 calling for records from the petitioner with respect to the refund application dated 24.06.2025 filed by the petitioner. In response to aforesaid letter the petitioner filed its reply dated 29.07.2025 along with documents. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a show- cause notice dated 05.08.2025 stating that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient documents with respect to the refund application filed by the petitioner and provided an opportunity of personal hearing to substantiate the claim and file necessary documents. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has filed a reply along with documents to the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 under Rule 92(3) of the CGST/KGST Rules, 2017 read with Rule 89 ibid further read with HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54066 Section 54 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 rejecting the refund claimed by the petitioner towards IGST paid on export of goods to the extent of Rs.27,52,317/-. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed its reply to the show-cause notice along with documents. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient/ relevant documents to substantiate the said claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner having no option has approached this Court by way of the present petition interalia contending that due to bonafide reasons, sufficient cause and unavoidable circumstances, the relevant documents could not be produced and if one more opportunity is provided, by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would submit all relevant documents as sought for by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54066

It is also contended that even on merits, the petitioner is entitled to refund in view of the following judgments: (i) M/s. Amazon Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax GST (Appeals), Bengaluru – 2025 (5) TMI 150 – Karnataka. (ii) M/s. Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – 2025 (5) TMI 2139 – Karnataka. (iii) M/s. Athene Technologies India LLP Vs. The State of Karnataka – 2025 (6) TMI 88 – Karnataka. (iv) Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax – 2025-VIL-515- KAR.

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit all the relevant documents was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and in view of the decisions relied upon by the petitioners supra, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54066 opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 and remitting the matter back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting all relevant documents as sought for by the 2nd respondent in the impugned show-cause notice dated 05.08.2025. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-D is hereby set aside. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file pleadings, documents etc., before respondent No.2, who shall consider the same, hear the petitioner and proceed further, in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0