M/S Green Gold Global Resources LLP vs. The State Of Ap
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010007722024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] WEDNE AY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 1080, 673, 741, 917 of 2024 WRIT PETITION NO:1080 of 2024 Between:
GREEN GOLD GLOBAL RESOURCES LLP, 2ND CROSS, 2/29, SANTHI NAGAR, NEAR APSRTC BUS STAND, MUTHUKUR, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH, 524344. REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER SRI DEEPAK TIWARY, S/O. ANAND KISHORE TIWARY, AGED. 63 YEARS, C/O. GREEN GLOBAL RESOURCES PVT LTD, DOOR NO26, 2ND FLOOR, RAJA ANNAMALAI ROAD, PURASAWALKAM, CHENNAI- 600 084, TAMILNADU STATE
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT OF A P, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSINER, (ST), STATE TAX DEPARTMENT, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501. 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, STATE TAXES, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, 19-10-100, 3A, NEW INDIRA NAGAR, BESIDE SGS ARTS COLLEGE ROAD, TIRUPATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501
2 RRR,J & TCDS, J W.P.Nos.1080 of 2024 and Batch
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST), NELLORE -I CIRCLE ,2ND FLOOR,S.R.BUILDING, RR STREET, NELLORE-524001, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the proceeding of the 3rd repondent Order Number ZD370923013759Y dated 21.09.2023 in Form GST APL-04 affirming the Refund Rejection order of the 4th Respondent in ZD3702210001563 dated 01-02-2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 as also evidence of receipt of supply of coal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21A of Constitution of India, and to consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 to allow the refund of the amount in terms of claim application dated 09-07-2020 with interest in terms of GST Act 2017 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to receive the Rejoinder copies on record by allowing the leave petition in this above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
PAREDDY ROSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP)
3 RRR,J & TCDS, J W.P.Nos.1080 of 2024 and Batch
The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner which is in the business of importing coal and selling the same to its customers, including customers in SEZ area had imported certain coal for the months of February, March, May and June of 2019 and claims to have sold the said coal to manufacturing units, in an SEZ area.
The petitioner had then moved an application for refund of the GST paid, by the petitioner, in the course of purchase of the said coal. These applications moved, for each month, separately were rejected by the assessing authority by orders on the dates given below. Aggrieved by the orders of rejection, the petitioner moved appeals before the appellate authority. These appeals also came to be dismissed by way of separate orders which are contained herein below :
W.PNo.
MONTH
AS PER CERTIFICA TE VALUE OF RS.
AS PER GSTR3B VALUE IN Rs. DATE OF OJECTION BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY DATE OF REJECTION BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY W.P.No.673/2024 Feb 19 1,17,26,074 1,17,26,074 01.02.2021 21.09.2023 W.P.No.741/2024 March 19 51,39,700 51,39,700 01.02.2021 21.09.2023 W.P.No.917/2024 May 19 90,38,219 90,38,219 01.02.2021 21.09.2023 W.P.No.1080/2024 June 19 1,82,53,587 1,82,53,587 01.02.201 21.09.2023
4 RRR,J & TCDS, J W.P.Nos.1080 of 2024 and Batch
Aggrieved by these orders of the rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of these Writ Petitions. As all these writ petitions raised the same issue, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.
Heard, Sri Dr.M.V.K.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents.
Both the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority had rejected the refund claims of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that the claim of the petitioner, that the goods had moved from Visakhapatnam to the manufacturing units of the purchasers, in the SEZ areas has not been demonstrated by way of any document showing such movement. Secondly, the E-way bills produced by the petitioner would show that the place of dispatch of the coal is from the registered office of the petitioner in Nellore District to Visakhapatnam District and the same is not demonstrated by filing of tollgate receipts etc. In fact the authorities held that there was no such movement from Nellore to Visakhapatnam District.
5 RRR,J & TCDS, J W.P.Nos.1080 of 2024 and Batch
The authorities, on the basis of these findings took the view that there was no sale by the petitioner, to the units in the SEZ area, and consequently the petitioner was not entitled for any refund.
Dr.M.V.K.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had filed GSTR-3B returns, for these periods, showing the purchase of coal, which is the subject matter of the refund application and the authorities had accepted such sales. The learned counsel would also contend that the case of the petitioner had always been that the goods have moved from Visakhapatnam Port to the manufacturing units in the SEZ areas for a distance of about 100 kms and no documentation to demonstrate movement could be produced as there were no tollgates on this route. The learned counsel would contend that in such circumstances the authorities could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner.
Apart from this, learned counsel would also contend that rule 89(2) (d) (e) stipulated the documents that are required to be produced when refund is sought, in relation to sales made to SEZ units. The Learned counsel would submit that these
6 RRR,J & TCDS, J W.P.Nos.1080 of 2024 and Batch
documents were also produced before the authorities. However, these documents were not taken into account by the authorities and the same is violative principles of natural justice as well as being an arbitrary exercise of power.
The learned Government Pleader would contend that the said documents are certification under rule 89 which were not placed before the authorities and consequently there were no irregularities in the order passed by the authorities. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the movement of the goods from Nellore would have to be demonstrated by the petitioner, as the petitioner itself had recorded, in the e-way bills, that the point of origin of goods was Nellore District.
From the documents and material placed before us, it is clear that the petitioner had never claimed that the goods were moved from Nellore to the SEZ units. The claim of the petitioner is that the goods moved from Visakhapatanam Port to the SEZ units. Though there is no material before this court showing such movement of goods, this cannot be taken to be that there was no movement of goods.
7 RRR,J & TCDS, J W.P.Nos.1080 of 2024 and Batch
Rule 89 (2) (d) (e) has been incorporated, in the rules so that any supply made to SEZ unit can be certified and accepted by the authorities, for the purpose of granting refunds. The petitioner claims that such certification had been placed before the authorities while the authorities do not accept this contention. In any event, it is this certification, which would be conclusive as to the sale of goods to SEZ units.
In view of the dispute as to whether these documents have been placed before the authorities, it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority for ascertaining whether such certification is available with the petitioner and to consider such certification, upon such certification being placed before the assessing authority.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the order of the rejection passed by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority in the table mentioned above, and the applications for refund, filed by the petitioner are remanded back to the assessing authority to reconsider the said applications after taking into account the certificates produced by the petitioner, under rule 89 (2) (d) (e).
8 RRR,J & TCDS, J W.P.Nos.1080 of 2024 and Batch
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
2026 CMK/SSA
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.