Naga Sai Oils Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present Writ Petition are covered by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated 29.01.2025, in W.P.No.5253 of 2023 & batch. Consequently, the impugned order of rejection of refund, dated 14.11.2023, passed by the 4th respondent was set aside. The respondents were directed to re-consider the application for refund in terms of Section 34 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and specifically without relying on the clarification issued under Circular No.181/13/2022-GST, dated 10.11.2022. This re-consideration was to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The ratio decidendi is that orders inconsistent with binding High Court judgments must be reconsidered in light of that precedent, particularly when a specific circular is found to be contrary to the law laid down.
Facts
The petitioner, Naga Sai Oils Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.11.2023, passed by the 4th respondent, which rejected their application for a GST refund. The respondents are the Union of India and others. Both the petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax acknowledged that the issues raised in the writ petition were covered by a previous judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 29.01.2025, in W.P.No.5253 of 2023 & batch. The amount in dispute and the specific tax period(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order of rejection of refund, dated 14.11.2023, passed by the 4th respondent is liable to be set aside in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 29.01.2025 in W.P.No.5253 of 2023 & batch? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The issues raised in the writ petition are covered by the Division Bench judgment, implying the rejection order is erroneous. Respondent's contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the issues are covered by the Division Bench judgment, indicating no opposition to setting aside the order based on the precedent.
Sections Cited
Section 34
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
APHC010371562024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21258/2024 Between: Naga Sai Oils Private Limited ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
SHAIK SHAHEDAZ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ...
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admit that the issues raised in the present Writ Petition are covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 29.01.2025, in W.P.No.5253 of 2023 & batch.
2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21258 of 2024
Following the said Judgment, the impugned order of rejection of refund, dated 14.11.2023, passed by the 4th respondent is set aside and the respondents are required to re-consider the application for refund, in terms of Section 34 of the Central Goods & S
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.