M/S Goodluck INDIA LTD vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 430 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.9.2023 passed by respondent no. 1 and the order dated 22.6.2020 passed by respondent no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in manufacture and supply of goods and having GSTIN- 09AAACG3204D4Z5. He further submits that the petitioner has moved an application for refund (F.Y. 2017-18) on 26.3.2020 but the said application was returned on 6.4.2020 on the ground that supporting documents are illegible and further a remark was made "tax payer advised to file fresh refund application after rectifying the above defect", thereafter the petitioner again filed application on 1.5.2020 along with supporting documents annexing the chart showing how the claim of refund has been made. Thereafter notice has been issued on 8.5.2020 mentioning that as to why the refund application may not be barred by limitation under Section 54 of the Act. Thereafter reply was submitted by the petitioner on 26.5.2020 but being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order dated 22.6.2020 has been passed by which the application has been rejected against which an appeal has been filed, which has also been rejected. 4. He further submits that all relevant material as well as supporting documents were available on record but without adverting to the same, the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Goodluck India Ltd .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another .....Respondent(s) claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the impugned orders. He submits that the petitioner has explained each and every point along with reply and also annexed the chart showing that no excess input tax credit has been claimed and excess tax amount has been deposited but instead of allowing the claim of the petitioner for refund, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal without considering the material on record. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. The petitioner has claimed the refund of excess tax amount by way of filing an application to which notices were issued and reply was submitted along with relevant documents annexing the chart as to how the excess tax amount was deposited to which the petitioner was claiming for refund. The record shows that various documentary evidence has been filed in support of the claim of the petitioner but the respondent authority has failed to consider