M/S. Siemens Technology And Services Private Limited vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to credit the refund amounting to Rs.1,82,06,402/- as sanctioned vide Refund Sanctioned Orders No.0250103781119 dated 16.3.2020 (Annexure-A), No.0250103761119 dated 16.3.2020 (Annexure-A1) and No.025010379119 dated 16.3.2020 (Annexure- A2) to the Petitioner's bank account; b. Direct the Respondent No.2 to credit applicable interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act that is to be calculated from 24.9.2019 till the date the amount is credited to the bank account of the Petitioner; c. Grant such other orders or direction as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The grievance of the petitioner initially when it approached this Court was that despite the refund orders dated 16.03.2023 at Annexures - A1 and A2, the refund was not processed and paid to the petitioner.
During the pendency of the above matter, respondent No.4 submits that the said refund has been made on HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26529
2025 and as such the obligation of respondent No.4 has been complied.
The submission of Sri.Arvind V. Chavan, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 is also that insofar as interest is concerned until a specific order is received from respondent No.2 as regards the requirement to make payment of interest, respondent No.4 would be unable to process, since the refund is on account of respondent No.2. 5. Having perused the documents, it is clear that respondent No.2 had passed orders on 16.03.2020 for refund of the amount as per Annexure - A, A1, A2, which is not processed by respondent No.4 until the above petition is filed. Orders having been passed by respondent No.2 on 16.03.2020. The same is confirmed to have been received by respondent No.4 immediately thereafter. It was but required for respondent No.4 to have made payment of the amount at that time itself. If such payment had been made in the year 2020, there would be no requirements to make payment of any interest. It is on account of non-processing of the refund orders by respondent No.4 that the said refund amount continues to bear interest in terms of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act ), which would be required to be paid. It cannot now be contented HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26529 by respondent No.4 that respondent No.2 has to pass a fresh order for making payment of interest on the delay which has been caused by respondent No.4. 6. It is for respondent No.4 by itself to have made payment of the interest without even having made the above submission before this Court. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i). The Writ Petition is partly allowed; and ii) Respondent No.4 is directed to make payment with interest on the refunded amount to the petitioner calculated from 16.03.2020, in terms of Section 56 of CGST Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
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.