9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is relevant to note that respondent No. 1 has come to the conclusion that supplier/vendor was the person ought to have issued credit note and thereafter, it was open for the petitioner to seek refund and without doing so, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of the GST. Respondent No. 1 has also come to the conclusion that it is for the vendor to file an appropriate application before the respondents/authorities seeking refund and only thereafter, the grievance of the petitioner can be addressed for the purpose of refund. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case viz., the payment of sum of Rs. 14,08,79,262/- paid by the petitioner to the vendor, payment of Rs. 2,53,58,268/- towards GST by the vendor to respondents and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agreement dated 29.05.2017 entered into between the petitioner and its vendor by name viz., M/s. Mavin Switchgears and Control Pvt.Ltd., the petitioner paid advance of Rs. 14,08,79,262/- to the aforesaid vendor as well as GST of Rs. 2,53,58,268/-. Subsequently, the aforesaid vendor did not supply goods under the contract to the petitioner and the contract having been cancelled, the petitioner called upon the aforesaid vendor to return/refund the entire advance amount. Since, the vendor did not refund/repay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,08,79,262/- back to the petitioner, the petitioner recovered the same by encashing the bank guarantee furnished by the aforesaid vendor. 4. As stated supra, in addition to paying the aforesaid sum of Rs. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No. 2 on the ground that eligibility criteria under Section 54 of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax, 2017, have not been met by the petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to note that respondent No. 1 has come to the conclusion that supplier/vendor was the person ought to have issued credit note and thereafter, it was open for the petitioner to seek refund and without doing so, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of the GST. Respondent No. 1 has also come to the conclusion that it is for the vendor to file an appropriate application before the respondents/authorities seeking refund and only thereafter, the grievance of the petitioner can be addressed for the purpose of refund. 7. In my considered opinion, in the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
