M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent, the Joint Commissioner of the Kerala State Goods & Service Tax Department, to refund an excess amount of tax paid under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The excess tax was determined in specific orders (Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, and P-5). The petitioner stated that the refund was allowed but with a condition: it could only be disbursed after settling arrears arising from orders TA Nos. 7/16 and 8/16, passed by the Division Bench for the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-1999. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that instead of approaching the High Court via writ petition, an application should be filed in the pending ST Revisions related to the aforementioned orders.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should not have approached the High Court by way of a writ petition for the refund. Instead, the petitioner was advised to file an appropriate application before the Division Bench in the pending ST Revisions concerning the orders dated 16.10.2019 (TA Nos. 7/16 and 8/16) for the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-1999. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to move such an application. The reasoning was that the refund was contingent upon the settlement of arrears related to these pending revisions. Therefore, the proper procedural recourse was to address the issue within the ongoing revision proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of based on the petitioner's submission to pursue this alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess tax paid under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as determined by Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, and P-5, despite pending ST Revisions concerning earlier financial years (1997-98 and 1998-1999)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a refund had been allowed but was made conditional on settling arrears from prior financial years, which were subject to pending ST Revisions. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's direction implies that the refund process is linked to the resolution of the pending revisions.