Sri Nabin Modak vs. Mh Commotrade PVT LTD And Ors
Held
The Court held that regardless of the grounds on which the petitioner sought a refund, it was mandatory for the petitioner to first make an application for refund in accordance with the prescribed rules before the GST authorities. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim of having paid GST twice. The Court reasoned that the statutory mechanism for seeking refunds must be followed. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by leaving it open for the petitioner to make an application for refund before the GST authorities. The GST authorities were directed to decide such an application in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
Facts
The petitioner, M H Comotrade Private Ltd., claims that GST was collected from it by the seller at the time of purchase of goods. However, the GST authorities subsequently insisted on and collected GST from the petitioner again. The petitioner contends that it is entitled to a refund of the tax paid twice. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, WP(C) No.861/2020, without first applying to the GST authorities for a refund.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of GST paid twice on the same transaction, as a matter of law? 2. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust the statutory remedy of applying for a refund before the GST authorities before approaching the High Court, as per procedural law? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it had paid GST twice on the same transaction and was therefore entitled to a refund. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the procedural aspect of exhausting remedies, but rather directly sought relief from the High Court. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Govt. Adv., did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's observation implies that the petitioner had not applied to the GST authorities for a refund, suggesting the revenue's stance would likely be that the statutory remedy must be pursued first.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page - 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
WP(C) No.861/2020
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D C Roy, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharjee, Govt. Adv.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_ R_
22/12/2020 (Akil Kureshi, CJ).
Case of the petitioner is that at the time of purchase of goods GST was already collected from the petitioner by the seller M H Comotrade Private Ltd. Despite this, the GST authorities insisted and collected GST from petitioner all over again. The petitioner is entitled to refund of tax paid twice.
It appears that the petitioner has not applied to the GST authorities for refund of the tax. Whatever be the ground on which the petitioner seeks refund, he has to make an application in accordance with the rules.
Under the circumstances, this petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to make application for refund before the GST authorities which will be decided in accordance with law.
Page - 2 of 2
Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
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 Tripura High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.