Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n could not have been retained by the State when the contract failed. It is as simple as that. Levy of tax is on the transaction; if transaction fails what is paid in advance needs to be refunded. The learned Single Judge has structured the impugned judgment on this inarticulate premise, which cannot be faltered. The vehement submission of learned AAG that no refund can be granted as a matter of course, unless the requirement of Sec. 54 of Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, appears to be very attractive at the first blush. However, a deeper examination shows it otherwise. Sec. 54 (1) of the Central GST Act, 2017 is in pari material with the said provision of the State Act. The Apex Court in OSWAL CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED vs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o 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 (GIS)/Conventional Sub-stations and extra-high voltage transmission lines. 2.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... x 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, he seeks invalidation of impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned Sr. Advo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ircumstances 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 petitioner or the vendor, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the order dated 06.09.2021 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 INDUSTRIES vs. UOI (1997)5 SCC 536. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates