M/S Nandi Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER VIDE ORDER NO. MYS-EXCUS-000-LD-AC-MA- REFUND/SO/01/2025-26 DATED 16/05/2025 BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 (ANNEXURE-'D') AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for 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-MA- REFUND/SO/01/2025-26 dated 16.05.2025 by the Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE – ‘D’); HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50570 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’) c) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and g) 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 16.04.2025 calling for records from the petitioner with respect to the refund application dated 19.03.2025 filed by the petitioner. In response to aforesaid letter the petitioner filed its reply dated 21.04.2025 along with documents. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a show- cause notice dated 02.05.2025 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’s authorised HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50570 representative attended the personal hearing on 13.05.2025 and also 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 16.05.2025 under Rule 96(4)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 rejecting the refund claimed by the petitioner towards IGST paid on export of goods to the extent of Rs. 50,07,866.54/-. 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 and so also the petitioner’s authorised representative attended the personal hearing and substantiated the claim of the petitioner. 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50570 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.
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50570 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 opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 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 02.05.2025. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (v) The petition is allowed. (vi) The impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-D is hereby set aside. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file pleadings, documents etc., before respondent HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50570 No.2, who shall consider the same, hear the petitioner and proceed further, in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37
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.