M/S Siddhivainayak Infrastructure Through Its Partner Shri Kolte vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Others
Held
The Court disposed of the petition, considering the innocuous prayer made. It noted that respondents No. 3 and 4 had already made a recommendation for the reimbursement of Rs. 26,36,541/-. The Court expected respondent No. 2 to take a decision on this recommendation within a period of 90 days, without being influenced by any observations made in the order. The Court did not issue notice to respondent No. 2 due to the nature of the prayer. The specific issue of direct reimbursement by respondent No. 2 (prayer clause 'B') was implicitly addressed by directing respondent No. 2 to decide on the recommendation, which would lead to the reimbursement if approved.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Siddhivinayak Infrastructure, through its partner Shri Kolte, filed a writ petition seeking directions for reimbursement of GST amounting to Rs. 26,36,541/-. The petitioner highlighted that respondents No. 3 and 4 (presumably GST authorities) had already made a recommendation for this reimbursement. The petitioner also sought an alternative direction for respondent No. 2 (Union of India through the Secretary) to decide on the recommendation made by respondents No. 3 and 4. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in a similar case, Rishu Kichu Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, where 90 days were granted for payment. The Union of India, through its Standing Counsel, represented respondents No. 1, 3, and 4.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct respondent No. 2 to reimburse the GST amount of Rs. 26,36,541/- to the petitioner, as per prayer clause 'B'. 2. Whether the Court should direct respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the recommendation made by respondents No. 3 and 4 regarding the GST reimbursement, as per prayer clause 'C'. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that respondents No. 3 and 4 had already forwarded a decision recommending the reimbursement of Rs. 26,36,541/-. They relied on a previous order of the High Court in WP No. 8033/2022, Rishu Kichu Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which granted 90 days for payment in identical circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. The learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India represented respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8567 OF 2022 M/S SIDDHIVINAYAK INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI KOLTE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr.Alok Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Deve, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.) DATE : AUGUST 22, 2022 PER COURT :
The petitioner prays that prayer clause ‘B’ and 'C' must be considered. Prayer clause 'B' and ‘C’ read as under :- “B. That the Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent No.2 to reimburse the GST amount of Rs.26,36,541/-. C. That in the alternate the Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent No.2, to take a decision on the recommendation made by respondent Nos.3 and 4.”
The learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India represents respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that khs/August 2022/8567 respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have already forwarded a decision with regard to the reimbursement of the GST amount Rs.26,36,541/-. The said recommendation reads as under :- “Passed for Rs.26,36,541/- (in words Twe
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 Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.