M/S Beml Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned bearing File No.GEXCOM/ADJN/ST/160/2024-CGST-RANGE-D 1- IV- 1-COMMRTE-BENGALURU(S) Order-In-Original No.10/2024-25/AC/ 1 dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1, enclosed at Annexure-A1 rejecting the refund application dated 05.03.2024 vide Annexure-G filed by the Petitioner ;
b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned bearing No.C. No.IV/16/01/2019 Misc. Tech. Adjn letter dated 22.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2, enclosed at Anenxure-A2 transferring the refund application dated 18.07.2024 vide Annexure-M filed by the petitioner;
c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing either the Respondent No.1 or the Respondent No.2 to sanction the refund of Rs.8,86,04,298/- vide Annexures-G & M in accordance with law; and NC: 2024:KHC:39647 d) pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 26.02.2014, respondent No.2 at Mysuru passed an Order-in- original against the petitioner, aggrieved by which the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the CESTAT, Bengaluru, vide order dated 13.10.2023 in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, petitioner filed a refund application before respondent No.2, who did not grant refund and the refund application was returned by respondent No.2 to the petitioner with a direction to present the same before respondent No.
Subsequently, the petitioner having filed a refund application before respondent No.1, the same also came to be rejected vide order dated 04.06.2024 on the ground that it does not have juri iction to decide the refund application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a refund application before respondent No.2, who issued Communication dated 22.07.2024 stating that refund application has been transferred to NC: 2024:KHC:39647 respondent No.
Under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that it is respondent No.1 at Bengaluru, who is the juri ictional authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund, which now stands transferred from respondent No.2 at Mysuru and that the refund application has to be considered by respondent No.1, who would pass appropriate orders on the same.
By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the refund application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 has been transferred to respondent No.1 at Bengaluru, the impugned order at Annexure – A1 deserves to be quashed and respondent No.1 be directed to consider the refund application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, which has now been transferred to respondent No.1 along with the refund application already filed before respondent No.1. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order at Annexure – A1 deserves to be quashed by issuing certain directions. NC: 2024:KHC:39647
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Order-in-original at Annexure – A1 dated 04.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the refund application in Form – R filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 on 05.03.2024 as well as refund application in Form – R filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 on 18.07.2024, which has now been transferred to respondent No.1 and pass appropriate orders on both the refund application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
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.