M/S Kalsi Buildcon Private LTD, Represented Thro. Its Authorized Signatory Shir Sonu Kumar Dubey vs. The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Serivces Tax And Central Excise

Held

The High Court held that it was not for the Court to determine the exact refund due to the petitioner or the amounts payable by the petitioner to the respondents. This determination is an exercise that must be undertaken by the respondents themselves. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise) to act on the CESTAT's order dated 24.10.2024. This involved determining whether any refund with interest is payable to the petitioner or if the petitioner is liable to pay any amounts to the revenue along with interest. This exercise was to be completed within three months from the date of the order, preferably after hearing the petitioner. If a refund was found due, it was to be paid within one month of the decision. The petitioner also undertook to pay any amount found due within one month of communication, subject to further legal proceedings. All rival contentions on merits were left open to be decided by the 3rd respondent.

Facts

M/s. Kalsi Buildcon Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking refunds based on a Final Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT order dated 24.10.2024 had set aside demands pertaining to the extended period of limitation for the period 2014-15 up to June 2017, as the show cause notice was issued on 20th September 2019. However, the CESTAT held that any demand within the normal period of limitation was liable to be paid by the petitioner along with interest. The petitioner's grievance was that the respondents (CGST authorities) were not acting in accordance with this order, and the petitioner believed a refund was due. The respondents disagreed with the petitioner's calculation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to determine the refund due to the petitioner or the amount payable by the petitioner, along with interest, in accordance with the CESTAT's Final Order No. 77206 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and implementation of the CESTAT order). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that based on its calculations following the CESTAT order, a refund along with interest was payable to it. They sought the High Court's intervention to direct the respondents to act on the CESTAT order and process the refund. Respondents' contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not agree with the petitioner's position regarding the refund due. They contended that the petitioner was liable to pay certain amounts, along with interest, as per the CESTAT order.