Conviva Apac Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"i. To issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus writ, order or direction directing Respondent to adjudicate the refund applications filed by the Petitioner on 30.06.2025 (ANNEXURE 'C5') for the FY 2023- 24 and consequently issue the refund of Rs.95,57,797/- along with interest. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46300 ii. To issue any other order(s), direction(s), writ(s) or any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the memorandum of writ petition and the documents produced along with the petition in order to point out that on 27.03.2025 vide Annexure 'A', the petitioner filed refund application in Form GST RFD-01 before the respondent along with all the relevant /supporting documents, despite which the respondent issued a cryptic, non-speaking deficiency memo dated 28.03.2025 vide Annexure 'B', as a result of which the petitioner submitted one more application, on the very same day, i.e., 28.03.2025 vide Annexure 'C' to which the respondent issued one more deficiency memo vide Annexure 'D' dated 01.04.2025, in pursuance of which the petitioner filed one more application on 02.04.2025 vide Annexure 'C1', to which the respondent yet again issued a cryptic HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46300 deficiency memo stating that the petitioner had not submitted supporting documents. It is submitted that as a result of the complete/ total inaction on the part of the respondent who repeatedly intimated the petitioner that the supporting documents had not been furnished by them, the petitioner reiterated its claim vide Annexures 'C2', 'C3', 'C4' and 'C5' despite which the respondent has not taken steps to consider the refund claims/ applications of the petitioner who is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondent would consider the refund claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondent to consider the refund claims of the petitioner and take appropriate decision/ pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a stipulated timeframe. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46300
In order to enable the respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner as stated supra, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 24th November 2025 at 11.00 a.m. on which date the petitioner is at liberty to produce additional pleadings/documents which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall consider the same and take appropriate decision/ pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from 24th November 2025. 7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
JT/- CT: JL
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.