2020 (8) TMI 415 - HC - GST

Refund of wrongly deducted G.S.T., amount from the security deposit - purchase of rejected wheat - HELD THAT - The writ petition is disposed of with direction to Managing Director, Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. to take decision on petitioner s representation dated 20.09.2019 (annexed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) as early as possible; but, not later than eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect deduction of G.S.T. by respondent no. 1 from the security deposit made by the petitioner.
2. Failure of Competent Authority to take action on refund of G.S.T.
3. Relief sought by the petitioner in the form of mandamus for correction of outward supplies, refund of excess tax, and compensation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in Seeds and Food Grains, alleged that respondent no. 1 wrongly deducted G.S.T. amounting to ?10,23,484 from the security deposit. The petitioner contended that damaged wheat seeds attracted NIL rate of G.S.T. according to an advance ruling. Despite representations, the Competent Authority did not initiate any steps for refund. The petitioner sought a mandamus for correction of outward supplies and refund of the entire amount collected as G.S.T. along with interest.

2. Respondent no. 4 argued that under Section 54(8)(e) of the G.S.T. Act, the second prayer for refund cannot be granted to the petitioner. It was stated that G.S.T. can be refunded to the dealer from whom it was collected, indicating that the Competent Authority cannot be directed to refund the G.S.T. to the petitioner as it was deposited by respondent no. 1. However, the court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Managing Director of respondent no. 1 to decide on the petitioner's representation within eight weeks.

3. The relief sought by the petitioner included correction of outward supplies in the Annual Return 2017-2018, refund of wrongly charged G.S.T., and compensation for the illegal charging of G.S.T. on rejected wheat seeds. The court's decision to direct the Managing Director to make a decision on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the delay in refund and lack of action by the Competent Authority. The judgment focused on resolving the issues raised by the petitioner related to the incorrect deduction of G.S.T. and the delay in refund processing.