M/S Fluor Daniel INDIA PVT LTD vs. The Additional Commissioner Of State Tax-Cum- Appellate Authority, Panchkul, Haryana Annd Anr

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Fluor Daniel India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order dated June 28, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State-tax-cum-Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 1). This order rejected the petitioner's refund claim amounting to Rs. 16,40,24,166/-. The State counsel, in response, stated that the entire relief claimed by the petitioner has been accepted in view of Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated September 20, 2021. Consequently, the State counsel requested the petition be dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this but raised the issue of interest payable, which the Court indicated would be considered later.

Held

The Court held that the present petition stands dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. This decision was based on the statement made by the learned State Counsel, who confirmed that the entire relief claimed by the petitioner had been accepted in view of Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated September 20, 2021. The Court noted the petitioner's counsel's submission regarding the payment of interest, stating that this factor could be looked at later. The ratio decidendi is that when the revenue concedes to the entire relief sought by the petitioner, rendering the petition infructuous, the Court will dismiss the petition on that ground, reserving the right to address ancillary issues like interest at a later stage if necessary. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the petition. The issue of interest payable was expressly left undecided for the present.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refund claim of the petitioner for Rs. 16,40,24,166/- should be quashed, as prayed by the petitioner, or whether the petition should be dismissed as infructuous, as argued by the revenue. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order rejecting their refund claim. While not explicitly arguing against the refund being accepted, their counsel raised the issue of interest being payable on the refund, implying that the matter was not entirely settled by the revenue's concession. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the entire relief claimed by the petitioner had been accepted in light of Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated September 20, 2021. Therefore, the revenue contended that the writ petition had become infructuous and should be dismissed.