9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 for laying a challenge to the learned Single Judge's order dated 18.04.2024 whereby Respondent - Assessee's W.P. No. 9075/2024 (T-RES) having been favoured the Refund Decline Orders dated 06.09.2021 & its confirmation in Appeal order 30.09.2023 have been quashed. Further, Assessee's Refund Application dated 05.07.2021 having been allowed, Petitioners are directed to refund the entire GST amount of Rs. 2,53,58,268/- within eight weeks. 2. BRIEF FACT MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2.1 The Respondent herein, namely, M/S NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, entered into a contract with M/s Mavin Switch Gears and Control Private Limited for the supply, installation, and commissioning of Gas insulated Sub-stations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the cancelled contract and declare these in their tax return, adjusting the tax liability accordingly. It was concluded by the Appellate Authority that the taxpayer could not seek a refund of SGST & CGST as the tax paid on the advance was the supplier's responsibility. 3. Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the Revenue argues that factual matrix that would give raise to a claim for refund needed to be ascertained at the hands of authorities and therefore, learned Single Judge could not have undertaken that exercise; the Refund Decline Order made by the original authority having been examined is confirmed by the statutory appellate authority; even otherwise, the procedure for refund cannot be dispensed with. So arguing, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned judgment has rightly observed as under: "7. In my considered opinion, 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 refund of entire amount of Rs. 14,08,79,262/- by encashment of the bank guarantee by the petitioner and other material on record would cumulatively indicate that there was no GST liability either by the petitioner or his vendor were concerned and by applying doctrine/principles of unjust enrichment and restitution and since the aforesaid GST amount is lying with the respondents, who are retaining the same without there being any GST liability either by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract because of which it was rescinded and the price paid in advance was retrieved by encashing the bank guarantee. Added, the GST portal and the returns of both the Assessee herein and his vendor reflect the payment of GST amount in a sum of Rs. 2,53,58,268-00. What prejudice would be caused to the State by making the refund as sought for by the Assessee, is not discernible. Caesar cannot retain monies of citizens without statutory justification. After all, the Assessee is not going to make his unjust enrichment by obtaining the refund, but will get back his own money. Article 265 of our Constitution states that tax not to be imposed save by authority of law. This broadly accords with the law declared by the Apex Court in MAFATLAL INDUSTR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
