Krishna Sai Exports Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶20

2

¶21

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.15691 of 2022

¶22

pleased to For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring the Proceedings of the 1St respondent, in form GST RFD-06 dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure P-1) in passing the orders for rejection of Refund claim for the Tax period September-2017, without considering the objections filed through letter dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure P-2) with reference to the show cause notice dt 08.06.2018 in FORM-GST-RFD-08(Annexure P-3), as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Rule 89 to 96 R/w Sec 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.K ADI SIVA VARA PRASAD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.Y N VIVEKANANDA

¶27

3

¶28

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.15691 of 2022

¶29

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandhan Rao)

¶30

Heard Sri K. Adi Siva Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

and Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner herein had established its manufacturing unit in SEZ area. However, the registration of the petitioner, under the Goods and Services Act, 2017 (herein referred to as the GST Act) did not reflect the status of the SEZ, due to which the petitioner ended up reimbursing the GST paid by its suppliers and the same resulted in levying applicable taxes to the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner also ended up paying GST on turnovers which fell under Reverse charge mechanism.

¶33

The petitioner had filed an application, for refund of the tax paid due to the above reasons. The said application of the petitioner for refund under Section 54 of the GST Act, 2017 was rejected by the 1^st respondent, in FORM GST RFD-06, dated 28.01.2019.

¶34

Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner has raised various grounds on the merits of the case, and also on ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of rejection had been passed without considering the request filed by the petitioner and the said order of the rejection does not contain any reasons and the same is violative of Principles of Natural Justice.

¶36

4

¶37

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.15691 of 2022

¶38

A perusal of the order of rejection would show that, the order of rejection, passed by the respondent No.1, does not contain any reasons as to why the request of the petitioner for refund of tax had been rejected. The absence of reasons in such an order is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice, as the absence of reasons puts the petitioner at disadvantage. The absence of reasons would also indicate the fact that, the Authority had not applied its mind to the application of the petitioner.

¶39

For all these reasons, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of rejection, dated 28.01.2019 and remanding the matter back to the 1^st respondent for proper consideration of the application of the petitioner, at the earliest and at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶40

Needless to say, this Court has not considered any of the issues raised by the petitioner and the same are left open.

¶41

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶44

____________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

¶45

Date: 17.02.2026. JLSR

Krishna Sai Exports v. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Sai Exports v. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Mastan, Vs Principal District Judge , Chittoor district, Chittoor

Smt. G. Naga Manjari, Vs The Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District

M/s. Sri Soma Sai Agencies, Vs Deputy Commissioner (St)

M/s Surya Tiles and Sanitary, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Teju Granites Vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Sri Rama Naresh Kumar Iron and Steel and Plywood Vs the Deputy Commissioner