Allowed

M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited v. the Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Sept 2022WP/9347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a common order disposing of Interlocutory Applications filed in a Writ Petition. The petitioner sought a refund of approximately Rs. 1.90 Crore wrongly credited to Rail Vikas Nigam. The court allowed the IA applications and directed the Commercial Tax authority to consider the refund request within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.4 to deal with the petitioner's letter dated 01.02.2022 seeking refund of Rs.1,90,14,176/- within three months.

M/s. Rithwik Projects Private… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SYAMSUNDER

¶3

I.A.NOs.2 & 3 of 2022 IN/AND

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.9347 of 2022

¶5

COMMON ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶6

Heard Sri M.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M.Ravindra Nath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶7

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶8

“…… to issue any order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in withholding Rs.1,90,14,176/- which was wrongly and inadvertently uploaded by the petitioner company to the credit of Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Chennai vide Invoice No.RVNL/44/17-18, dated 18.08.2017 and Invoice No.RVNL/44/17-18, dated 18.08.2017 (30%) for Rs.1,40,54,508/- and Invoice No.RVNL/48/17-18, dated

¶9

¶10

30.09.2017 (70%) for Rs.49,59,668/-(Total Rs.1,90,14,176/-) instead of uploading the same to the credit of M/s SEW Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, without any authority of law, contrary to the provisions of GST Act, 2017 and in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay Rs.1,90,14,176/- to the petitioner company or issue a credit note to the petitioner company at the earliest and pass such other order….”

¶11

The petitioner herein filed Interlocutory Application Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 in the present Writ Petition. In I.A.No.2 of 2022, the petitioner sought a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 4 to consider the letter dated 01.02.2022 addressed by the petitioner company for refund of Rs.1,90,14,176/- to the petitioner company or issue a credit note to the petitioner company for the said sum. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is pressing his request against respondent No.4 only and not against respondent No.1.

¶12

In so far as I.A.No.3 of 2022 is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner sought for amendment of the main prayer as well as the interim prayer in the Writ Petition, which is as follows:

¶13

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action o the Respondents 1 & 4 in not considering the letter dated 1.2.2022 and not refunding Rs.1,90,14,176/-

¶14

¶15

which was wrongly and inadvertently uploaded by the petitioner company to the credit of Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Chennai vide Invoice No.RVNL/44/17-18, dated 18.8.2017 and Invoice No.RVNL/44/17-18, dated 18.8.2017 (30%) for Rs.1,40,54,508/- and Invoice No.RVNL/48/17-18, dated 30.09.2017 (70%) for Rs.49,59,668/-(Total Rs.1,90,14,176/-) instead of uploading the same to the credit of 5^th respondent i.e., M/s SEW Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, without any authority of law, contrary to the provisions of GST Act, 2017 and in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to refund Rs.1,90,14,176/- to the petitioner company or issue a credit note to the petitioner company and pass such other order….”

¶16

However, at the time of hearing, he restricted his prayer against respondent No.4 only.

¶17

Though various grounds are raised in the Writ Petition, Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that his request is only to give a direction to respondent No.4 to deal with the letter dated 01.02.2022 given by the petitioner company for refund of the amount mentioned above. Sri M.Ravindra Nath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have nothing to do with the petitioner company and if the petitioner has wrongly uploaded the amount in favour of respondent Nos.2

¶18

¶19

and 3, remedy is available with the Commercial Tax Department for recovery of the said amount, if any.

¶20

Sri Balaji, learned counsel for respondent No.5, would submit that there is no dispute with regard to payments between his client and respondent Nos.2 and 3, but if the petitioner has paid any amount to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by mistake, it is left open to him to recover the same in accordance with law.

¶21

At this stage, Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent No.4, opposed the recovery sought for by the petitioner on the ground that it is the Central Authority which has to repay the amount and not by the Local Officer at Kadapa.

¶22

Be that as it may, the request of the petitioner, as stated above, is to deal with the letter dated 01.02.2022 given by him for refund of the amount from respondent No.4.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 are allowed and the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to deal with the letter dated 01.02.2022 addressed by the petitioner seeking refund of the amount mentioned above in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from

¶24

¶25

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶27

Petition shall stand closed.

¶28

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶29

___________________________ JUSTICE B.SYAMSUNDER

Date : 02.09.2022 MP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SYAMSUNDER

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.9347 of 2022

¶35

Date : 02.09.2022

¶36

M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hbl Power Systems Ltd., Vs The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax

Vishnu Barium Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Export Assessment)

Visakha Gas Agency Vs the Income Tax Officer

Valika Lakshmaiah, Vizianagaram Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd