BharatTaxGST

Sri Jeevan Saldanha vs. The Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/26832/2024HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01056421202423 October 2024Bench: M.I.ARUN3 pages
For Petitioner: SMT. VANI H., ADVOCATE AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUEFor Respondent: SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGC, FOR R.1

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42604 WP No. 26832 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.26832 OF 2024 (T-CUS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI JEEVAN SALDANHA S/O SRI JOHAN SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SPECTRUM INDUSTRIES OFFICE AT DOOR NO.C14-15-16 YEYYADI INDUSTRIES ESTATE MANGALORE-575 008. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VANI H., ADVOCATE AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE MANGALURU NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE PANAMBUR, MANGALURU-575 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGC, FOR R.1.) Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42604 WP No. 26832 of 2024 SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ISSUE REFUND OF IGST IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-G FORTHWITH, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1.

Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of color sorting machines and is registered under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On the ground that excess payment has been made to the Authorities, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of refund by the petitioner. As the same has not been considered so far, the present writ petition is filed. NC: 2024:KHC:42604 WP No. 26832 of 2024

2.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Respondent No.2 shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ii. The writ petition is disposed of. (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

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.