M/S Sasmos Het Technologies Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s SASMOS HET TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund Section) and other revenue authorities to sanction their refund claim amounting to INR 61,00,734. The petitioner had made repeated requests for this refund, along with applicable interest for the delay, but the respondents had not taken any steps. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that they would consider the petitioner's claim, including interest, if granted reasonable time. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition. It directed the concerned respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for a refund of INR 61,00,734, along with interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but rather focused on ensuring that the respondents addressed the petitioner's application within a stipulated timeframe. The reasoning was based on the respondents' submission that they would consider the claim if granted reasonable time, and the Court's desire to ensure timely action on the petitioner's pending refund application. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, under Article 226, can direct revenue authorities to consider and decide refund claims within a specified period when there is a demonstrable delay and no dispute regarding the entitlement is raised by the revenue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to sanction the refund claim of INR 61,00,734 along with interest for delayed refund? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that despite repeated requests, the respondents have failed to sanction their refund claim of INR 61,00,734, along with applicable interest. They sought a direction from the Court to forthwith sanction the refund and interest, or at least decide the pending refund applications without further delay. Respondents' Argument: The respondents' counsel submitted that if reasonable time were granted, they would consider the petitioner's claim for refund, including applicable interest, in accordance with the law.
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 reliefs: “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Order or direction for calling upon the NC: 2024:KHC:36864 refund application of the petitioner and Respondent No.1 may be ordered to sanction the refund claims of the Petitioner amounting to INR 61,00,734 in terms of the provisions of law along with interest for delayed refund;
b) That pending Notice, admission and disposing of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents, their sub-ordinates, agents or their representatives;
i) to forthwith sanction the refund claims of INR 61,00,734 of the Petitioner (along with interest for delayed refund) with such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble court.
ii) to direct the Respondents, their sub-ordinates, agents, or their representatives to decide the pending refund applications, including claim of interest, forthwith (along with interest for delayed refund) without any further delay.
c) for costs of the petition/application and orders thereon and;
d) For such other and further reliefs and orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
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 despite repeated request of the petitioner seeking refund in a sum NC: 2024:KHC:36864 of Rs.61,00,734/-, the respondents have not taken any steps to sanction any refund together with interest in accordance with law and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondents would consider the claim of the petitioner together with applicable interest in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ii. The concerned respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund in a sum of Rs.61,00,734/- (Rupees Sixty one Lakhs and Seven Hundred and Thirty Four only) together with interest within a period of four weeks from today. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32
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.