Kroll Global Solutions LLP vs. State Of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Anr

Original PDF →

WP/13173/2023HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM01040419202304 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The Petitioner, Kroll Global Solutions LLP, filed a Writ Petition challenging the Refund Rejection Order dated 01.06.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2, seeking a refund of Rs. 1,01,19,808/- along with interest. The Respondents initially contended that the refund was rejected because the Petitioner was not carrying on business from its principal place of business. To verify this, a State Officer visited the Petitioner's principal place of business on 26.03.2025, confirmed that business was being conducted there, and found the refund-related documents to be in order. A visit report was submitted and taken on record. The Court noted that the ground for rejection was unsustainable, as the Appellate Authority's order had indeed mentioned the refund amount.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- along with interest. The reasoning was based on the verification conducted by the State Officer, which confirmed that the Petitioner was indeed carrying on business at its principal place of business and that the refund-related documents were in order. The Court found the initial ground for rejection, that the Petitioner was not operating from its principal place of business, to be unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Appellate Authority's order did mention the refund amount, contrary to the Respondents' initial assertion. The impugned order dated 01.06.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the refund was quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 was directed to grant the refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- along with interest at 6% per annum from 12.09.2021 until the date of actual refund, in terms of Section 56 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner was directed to file a fresh refund application on the portal within one week, and Respondent No. 2 was directed to sanction and grant the refund within three weeks of the fresh application's filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- along with interest, considering the verification of its principal place of business and the documents submitted? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of relevant GST provisions concerning refund processing and business operations). Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 1,01,19,808/- and argued that the rejection order was unsustainable. They relied on the subsequent verification that confirmed their business operations at the principal place of business and the order of the Appellate Authority which, according to the Petitioner, mentioned the refund amount. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents initially argued that the refund was rejected because the Petitioner was not carrying on business from its principal place of business. Later, based on instructions, they submitted that the Petitioner would need to file a fresh refund application on the portal to process the refund.

Sections Cited

Section 56

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

9-13173-2023-WP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13173 OF 2023 Kroll Global Solutions LLP .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. S.D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for the State / Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: APRIL 4, 2025 P. C. 1. Although the above Writ Petition is shown under the caption “For Ad-Interim Reliefs”, with the consent of parties, we have heard it finally. Hence, we issue Rule. The Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner had filed the above Writ Petition challenging the Refund Rejection Order dated 01.06.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 and a Page 1 of 5 APRIL 4, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.04.05 13:31:20 +0530 9-13173-2023-WP=.doc direction to Respondent No. 2 to forthwith grant refund of Rs. 1,01,19,808/- along with interest. 3. The above Writ Petition was heard on 25.03.2025. 4. At the time of hearing, Ms. Vyas, based on the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.07.2023, contended that the refund was rejected by the Respondents as the Petitioner is not carrying on business from its principal place of business. 5. In order to enable the department to verify the factum that the Petitioner is carrying on business at its principal place of business, and to provide a list of documents required for the purpose of verification, the above Writ Petition was adjourned. 6. Mr. Vikas Jadhav, a State Officer, on the instructions of Mr. Atul R. Ghusale, the 2nd Respondent, visited the principal place of business of the Petitioner on 26.03.2025 and found that the Petitioner is carrying on business at the principal place of business and collected all the documents related to refund processing from the Petitioner and found them in order. Page 2 of 5 APRIL 4, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap 9-13173-2023-WP=.doc The visit report of Mr. Jadhav in Form GST Reg-30, is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 7. In view of the said verification and confirmation of documents by the Respondents, the Petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- along with interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). 8. The ground on which refund is rejected is otherwise not sustainable. The only ground on which refund is rejected is that the Appellate Authority has not specifically mentioned the amount of refund to be granted to the Petitioner. This is factually incorrect. The order of the Appellate Authority has mentioned the amount of refund. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the refund of the Petitioner is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to grant the refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application, i.e. 12.09.2021 till the date of actual refund in terms of Section 56 of the CGST Act. Page 3 of 5 APRIL 4, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap 9-13173-2023-WP=.doc 10. At this stage, Ms. Vyas, on instructions, submitted that in order to grant refund, the Petitioner, basis this order, is required to file a fresh refund application on the portal of the Respondents. Ms. Vyas, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner be directed to file a fresh refund application on the portal of the Respondents and the refund shall be granted within three weeks of uploading the said fresh refund application basis this order. 11. Considering the above submissions of Ms. Vyas, we direct the Petitioner to file a fresh refund application on the portal of the Respondents seeking a refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- within a period of one week from the date

of uploading of this order.

12.

Further, we direct Respondent No. 2 to sanction and grant the refund of Rs. 96,65,325/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 12.09.2021 till the date of actual refund, within a period of three weeks from the date of filing the said fresh refund application.

13.

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. APRIL 4, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap

9-13173-2023-WP=.doc

14.

This order will be Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] APRIL 4, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap

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