Khan Md. Nazim vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Krishnanagar Charge
Facts
The petitioner, Khan Md. Nizam, filed a representation on March 18, 2020, seeking a refund of an amount in question, in Form GST-RFD-01A. The petitioner's grievance is against the inaction of the respondents, specifically the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Krishnanagar Charge, in considering and disposing of this representation. The matter came before the High Court as a writ petition (W.P.A. 25 of 2021). The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent authorities to consider and decide his refund application.
Held
The Court held that there was no scope for passing an interim order and that the issues required affidavits from the respondents for final adjudication. However, instead of proceeding to a final decision after affidavits, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent concerned to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated March 18, 2020, in accordance with law. This decision was to be made after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. The respondent was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of the communication of the Court's order and to communicate the decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case and that the respondent should consider the petitioner's case strictly in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to act upon the petitioner's representation for refund filed on March 18, 2020, as required by law? (Question of fact and law). The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities have been inactive in processing his refund application submitted in the prescribed form. The State's contention, as indicated by the Court's direction for affidavits, suggests a need for their response to the petitioner's claims regarding the refund and the delay in its processing. The Court noted that it had not gone into the merits of the case, implying the primary issue was the alleged inaction rather than the eligibility for the refund itself.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2021. Krishnanagar Charge & Ors. Mr. Sumit Ghosh. ……….for the petitioner. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. D. Ghosh. ……..for the State. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering their submission, I am of the view that there is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter and the issues involved in this writ petition require affidavits from the respondents for final adjudication. The grievance of the petitioner is against inaction on the part of the respondents in considering and disposing the petitioner’s representation dated 18th March, 2020 which appears from page 8 and 9 of the supplementary affidavit making request for refund of the amount in question as per Form GST-RFD-01A. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent concerned to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 18th March, 2020 in accordance with 2 law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or h
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.