Disposed

M/S Asian Fab Tec Ltd. v. Asst Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2021WP/3332/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandatory order to sanction a VAT refund. The respondents undertook to process the remaining refund within four days. The court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the matter as not calling for further orders, waiving the claim for interest.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as not calling for any further orders upon the respondents undertaking to complete the refund process.

M/S Asian Fab Tec Ltd. Vs Asst Commissioner of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3332/2021 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s.Asian Fab Tec Ltd., Plot No.15, II Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058. (Represented by Mr.K.S.Puttaswamy Gowda, Managing Director, aged about 67 years, S/o Mr.Honne Gowda)

¶9

(By Sri.Raghuraman.V, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LVO-075, KIADB Building, Peenya Industrial Area, 2^nd Stage, Bangalore-560058.

¶12

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Admn) VAT Division-6, KIADB Building, Peenya Industrial Area, 2^nd Stage, Bangalore-560058.

¶13

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore-560009. …Respondents

¶14

(By Sri.K.Hema Kumar, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to comply with the re-assessment orders and form VAT 185 as enclosed as Annexure-A1 to A6 (Colly) and sanction the refund claimed to the extent of Rs.5,84,34,029/- (Rs.5,89,19,701/- minus Rs.4,85,672/-)

¶17

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders , this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition has been filed seeking for issuance

¶20

of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to comply with the re-assessment orders and sanction refund claimed to the extent of Rs.5,84,34,029/(Rs.5,89,19,701/minus Rs.4,85,672/-).

¶21

The petitioner has also sought for grant of interest with respect to the delayed payment of amount due by way of refund.

¶22

3. Learned counsel representing the

¶23

respondents has filed along with memo proceedings

¶24

¶25

under Sections 10(5) and 20 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Rule 128 of KVAT Rules, 2005.

¶26

It is to be noticed that an amount of Rs.98,88,348/- had been refunded previously as per the endorsement dated 19.02.2021 as noticed in the order dated 24.02.2021. Insofar as the remaining amount of refund, it is submitted that in terms of the proceedings dated 26.02.2021, the refund process with respect to an amount of Rs.4,74,76,238/- would be completed within a period of four days from today.

¶27

The respondent No.1 is present in the Court and submission as made above is upon instruction of respondent No.1. Recording the said undertaking, the petition is disposed off as not calling for any further orders.

¶28

¶29

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

¶30

submits that the petitioner does not insist as regards interest on the delayed payment in light of the stand of the Respondent and accordingly, said submission is taken note of.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off .

¶32

In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2020 does not survive for consideration.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

M/S Asian Fab Tec Ltd. v. Asst Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Asian Fab Tec Ltd. v. Asst Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

M/S Lion Security Services Vs the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Apkon Crushers Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt. Deveeramma Vs M/S. Panchamukhi Infrastructure

Mysore Palace Board Vs the Income Tax Officer(Tds), Ward 1

Smt. Vinita Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes