BharatTaxGST

Savebyswitching Global Solutions (P) LTD vs. The State Of Karnataka

Original PDF →
WP/14599/2023HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01034538202312 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
For Petitioner: SMT. MEGHNA LAL AND SRI. SUDHANVA KUMAR J.M. FOR SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATESFor Respondent: SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. GOREPPA .S, CGC FOR R4

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Before: SHRI. PETER FREDERICK CALLANDER,

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, quashing bearing no. T-766/22-23 IN GST.AP. 12/22-23 Order dated 22.09.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 and Order No. 134/2021-22 dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 enclosed at Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or direction, in the nature of Writ, directing the Respondents to grant refund of IGST of Rs. 24,31,668/- paid in excess in December 2018 along with interest; and (c) Pass such other order or order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46884

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA and learned CGC for respondent Nos.1 to 4 respectively, for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, the petitioner filed a refund application on 18.08.2021, to which the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 20.09.2021, to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 24.09.2021 culminating in the impugned refund rejection order vide Annexure-B dated 16.02.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original authority as well as the Appellate Authority have rejected the claim of the petitioner as barred by limitation without considering the claim of the petitioner and without considering the period stipulated by the Apex Court for the purpose of exclusion of time. The entire period of time excluded by the Apex Court on account of Covid-19 pandemic has not been considered or appreciated by the concerned respondent, who has come to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46884 incorrect conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration afresh of the claim of the petitioner, without reference to the period of limitation by holding that the application for refund is not barred by limitation and the same has been filed within time.

5.

Per contra, learned AGA and learned CGC submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner having filed the refund claim on 18.08.2021, the entire period from March-2020 to February-2022 has to be excluded for the purpose of computing period of limitation as held by the Apex Court regarding Cognizance for Extension of Limitation - (2022) 3 SCC 117. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that both respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3- Appellate Authority clearly fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the refund claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation and consequently, the impugned orders at Annexures- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46884 A and B deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, without reference to limitation, which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner in this order.

7.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 22.09.2022 passed by respondent No.3 and the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 16.02.2022 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, without reference to limitation, which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner in this order. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 08.12.2025 without awaiting further notice, failing which the present order shall automatically HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46884 stand recalled/revived without reference to the Bench. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents etc., before respondent No.2, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient opportunity and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37

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.