M/S Balaji Steel Rolling Mills LTD. vs. Smt. Rakhi Biswas And Ors

Held

The Court noted that the refund application had been sanctioned on 24.05.2023, and the delay in payment was due to pending PFMS validation for the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner was advised by the Superintendent of Taxes to ensure this validation. The petitioner's counsel assured that the validation would be completed within one week. Considering these developments and the assurance from the petitioner, the Court disposed of the contempt application. The Court directed that upon the petitioner completing the PFMS validation, the refund amount should be credited to the petitioner's account. The issue of whether the respondents had initially failed to comply with the order was implicitly addressed by the subsequent actions and the disposal of the contempt petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., had an order dated 16.04.2021 imposing tax and penalties under Section 129 of the GST Act quashed by the learned writ court on 03.01.2023 in WP(C) 548 of 2021. The petitioner was held entitled to consequential benefits, including a refund. The refund application was processed and sanctioned on 24.05.2023, including GST RFD-06. However, payment was pending due to PFMS validation for the petitioner's bank account. The Superintendent of Taxes advised the petitioner by letter dated 30.05.2023 to ensure PFMS validation and intimate the office. The petitioner's counsel stated that this would be done within one week. The instant contempt application arose from the delay in refund payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have complied with the order dated 03.01.2023 passed in WP(C) 548 of 2021, which directed the quashing of the tax and penalty order and entitled the petitioner to consequential benefits including refund. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents had failed to process the refund promptly, leading to the filing of the contempt petition. They relied on the previous writ court order which mandated the refund and consequential benefits. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the learned Government Advocate, submitted that the refund application had been sanctioned on 24.05.2023. The delay in payment was attributed to the pending PFMS validation for the petitioner's bank account. They further stated that the petitioner had been advised to complete the PFMS validation. No specific provisions or precedents were cited by either side in the contempt proceedings.