M/S Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

Heard Sri Ravi Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt. Nayanatara B G, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Akash B Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is a subsidiary of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., engaged in refining of crude petroleum and supply of goods incidental thereto. The petitioner, during the period between July 2017 and November 2017 receives amount in the form of advances from their customers for supply of goods incidental to refining of crude petroleum. The petitioner HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37476 is said to have duly discharged the applicable GST on such advances received by them during the said period. In cases where no supply of goods could be undertaken against the said advances, the petitioner has refunded the balance amount of advances by drawing refund vouchers. The petitioner, then files 6 refund applications electronically on 30-03-2019 for the period between April 2018 and September 2018 claiming refund of tax paid by the petitioner on the advance amount received for goods to be supplied, that could not be adjusted against the supplies in terms of Section 54 of the CGSC Act, 2017. 3. 2. Due to the onset of COVID-19, it is the averment in the petition that the petitioner was unable to verify the status of the refund claims by them and for the first time communicates on 01-08-2022 requesting the 3rd respondent to process the refund applications so submitted on 30-3-2019 and in return, receives a communication through WhatsApp that the petitioner’s request cannot be considered. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37476

The petitioner, thereafter, is said to have re- submitted 6 refund applications on 23-11-2022. A show cause notice then comes to be issued on 30-12-2022 seeking the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund applications dated 23-11-2022 should not be rejected, on the ground they are time barred. Later, through a reference made in the order dated 16-03-2023 petitioner comes to know that the original refund applications so submitted were rejected on 14-11-2019 itself. Further, the applications on 23-11-2022 seeking refund also comes to be rejected by the impugned orders dated 15-03-2023 and 16-03-2023. It is these orders that are challenged by the petitioner in the subject petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if a direction is issued to the respondents, to reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking refund, which is rejected on the score that it is time barred, it would suffice for the present. The submission is made on the score that the petitioners did not know about the status of the earlier applications and their rejection for the first time comes about in 2023. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37476

The learned counsel for the respondents, though would vehemently refute any such indulgence being shown, would leave the decision to the hands of the Court.

In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the fact that adequate material is placed to demonstrate that the refund applications were submitted well within time in the year 2019 itself, but were not processed or the process of the applications and their rejection were not made known to the petitioner and it is therefore, the petitioner has now resubmitted the applications, in view of the earlier diligence, the later negligence is to be ignored. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner benefit of reconsideration of the applications so filed seeking refund, as a one of solution to a one of problem.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following: