M/S Flexilis Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had already obtained the refunds related to their application for the years 2010-2011, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. Therefore, the primary remaining grievance was the pendency of the appeal against the CST assessment order for 2012-2013. The Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), to take up the appeal (Exhibit P7) challenging the assessment order (Exhibit P6) for the year 2012-2013. The appellate authority was instructed to pass final orders disposing of the appeal without undue delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The issue regarding the refund application was rendered infructuous as the refunds were already granted.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Flexilis Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their refund application for the years 2010-2011, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. They also sought a stay against a CST assessment order for 2012-2013 pending the disposal of their appeal against it. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the petitioner received the refunds related to their application. Their remaining grievance was the non-disposal of their appeal (Exhibit P7) filed against the CST assessment order (Exhibit P6) for the year 2012-2013 by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of their refund application for the years 2010-2011, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 based on Form 21 CC and annual returns? (Question of law/fact) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay against the CST assessment order for the year 2012-2013 until the disposal of their appeal, and a direction for the expeditious disposal of the appeal by the 3rd respondent? (Question of law/fact) Petitioner's arguments: - The petitioner sought a mandamus for the consideration of their refund application and a stay on the assessment order pending appeal, along with a direction for the timely disposal of the appeal. Respondents' arguments: - The Government Pleader appeared for the respondents. No specific arguments are recorded in the judgment, but the court heard both sides.