M/S Sonovision Aetos Technical vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sonovision Aetos Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., filed two refund applications on August 29, 2024, and August 31, 2024, for the periods October 2022 to December 2022 and January 2023 to March 2023, respectively. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (R-3) issued show cause notices on October 16, 2024, and October 17, 2024, proposing rejection of these applications. The petitioner submitted replies on November 4, 2024. Subsequently, R-3 passed impugned orders on November 7, 2024, rejecting the refund claims. The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court, seeking to quash them and direct the acceptance of refund applications and grant of refund with interest. The petitioner contended that due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, certain supporting documents were not submitted initially.
Held
The High Court held that the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims were not sustainable. The Court noted the petitioner's assertion that the non-production of certain documents was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. Crucially, the petitioner had produced additional documents before the High Court on February 19, 2025. In light of this, the Court found it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders dated November 7, 2024. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (R-3) for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted liberty to produce additional documents and pleadings, which R-3 was directed to consider. R-3 was also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hear them, and proceed in accordance with the law. The petitioner undertook to appear before R-3 on May 19, 2025, and R-3 was directed to dispose of the proceedings within three months from that date. The ratio decidendi is that where a refund claim is rejected for non-production of documents, and the petitioner subsequently provides those documents with sufficient cause before the appellate court, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (R-3) rejecting the petitioner's refund applications are sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's submission of additional documents before the High Court? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the refund applications were rejected due to the non-submission of certain documents, which occurred due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The petitioner has now produced these additional documents before the High Court and seeks a remand for reconsideration. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that there is no merit in the petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief: "WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: A. To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ to quash the impugned orders passed by respondent No.3 in Form GST-RFD-06 both dated 7.11.2024, bearing Nos.RFD- 06/181/2024-25/ED & RFD-06/183/2024-25/ED7, enclosed as ANNEXURES - 'E' AND 'F' for the reasons stated in the grounds; B. To issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No.3 to accept the two refund applications in FORM GST- RFD-01, which have been filed on 29-08-2024 & 31-08-2024 vide Annexures-A3 and L, and thus grant refund of taxes in accordance with law along with the interest as applicable; C. To pass any such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court might deem fit to be issued in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." NC: 2025:KHC:15637
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Gowri Shankar Prasad H.R.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 29.08.2024 and 31.08.2024, the petitioner filed two refund applications for the period October, 2022 to December, 2022 and January 2023 to March, 2023. In pursuance of the same, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notices dated 16.10.2024 and 17.10.2024 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the said refund applications should not be rejected. The petitioner submitted replies dated 4.11.2024 to both the said show cause notices and after personal hearing, the 3rd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the refund claims of the petitioner vide order dated 7.11.2024, which is assailed in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and submit that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, several documents in support of the refund claims were not available and could not be submitted before NC: 2025:KHC:15637 the 3rd respondent who has proceeded to reject the refund applications.
It is submitted, as directed by this Court the petitioner has produced additional documents which are placed on record and if the impugned orders are set aside and matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, the petitioner would produce additional pleadings, documents in support of his claim and the 3rd respondent may be directed to reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned orders will indicate that the 3rd respondent had rejected the refund claim by noticing that several documents have not been produced by the petitioner. However, in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not produced the additional documents which are now produced in NC: 2025:KHC:15637 the present petition before this Court on 19.2.2025, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexures-E and F dated 07.11.2024 and remit the matter to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned orders at Annexures-E and F dated 07.11.2024 are hereby set aside. iii) Matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional documents, pleadings etc., which shall be considered by the 3rd respondent, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and proceed further in accordance with law. NC: 2025:KHC:15637 v) The petitioner undertakes to appear before the 3rd respondent on 19.05.2025 without awaiting further notice from the 3rd respondent. vi) The 3rd respondent shall dispose of the proceedings within a period of three months from 19.05. 2025. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
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.