M/S. Aring Prodev Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11892 WP No. 4661 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4661 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. ARING PRODEV PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NO. 123, 1ST STAGE, BHARATHIPURA VILLAGE, DABASPETE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU-562111 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SUMIT DASGUPTA,

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANIRUDHA R NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-066, DGSTO-06, PEENYA, BENGALURU-560058

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), DGSTO-6, TTMC COMPLEX, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560027

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. HEMA KUMAR K, AGA)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER NO. ACCT/LGSTO-066/RFD/156/2023-24 DATED 19 APRIL 2024 IN ANNEXURE N PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND IMPUGNED ORDER

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:11892 WP No. 4661 of 2025

¶21

IN APPEAL NO. GST/AP.NO.325/2024-25 DATED 21.10.2024 IN ANNEXURE Q PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

“A. ISSUE a writ of CERTIORARI and/or such or other writ or order quashing the Order No. ACCT/LGSTO-066/RFD/156/202324 dated 19th April 2024 in Annexure N passed by Respondent no.1 and impugned order in appeal No. GST/AP.No.325/2024-25 dated 21.10.2024 in Annexure Q passed by Respondent No.2.

¶26

B. Direct writ(s) in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to forthwith refund the amount of Rs. 10,86,005/-;

¶27

C. Direct writ(s) in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to forthwith refund the amount of Rs. 10,86,005/-with interest in terms of Section 56 and proviso to Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017;

¶28

D. In the alternative permit the Petitioners to take credit in their electronic cash ledger to the extent of Rs.10,86,005/-;

¶29

E. PASS such other/further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity. “

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.

¶31

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-N passed by respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner in order to point out that the sole basis for respondent No.1 – Assistant

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11892 WP No. 4661 of 2025

¶33

Commissioner to reject the refund claim of the petitioner was by referring to a direction by the Joint Commissioner on 04.04.2024 directing the Assistant Commissioner to reject the said refund claim putforth by petitioner. It is submitted that the said rejection of the refund claim of the petitioner based on a direction by the Joint Commissioner is impermissible in law in the light of the impugned judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Orient Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. Union of India reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J382(S.C) and Orient Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. Union of India reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J345(S.C).

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the subsequent impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 21.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.2– Appellate Authority in order to contend that despite the said errors contained in the order of Assistant Commissioner being pointed out by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has rejected the appeal on the ground that original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was based on a direction issued by the Joint Commissioner who was of the designation/cadre as that of the Appellate Authority and as such it was not permissible for respondent No.2 – Appellate Authority to admit the appeal and consider the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 deserves to be quashed and the claim of the petitioner for refund be allowed.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:11892 WP No. 4661 of 2025

¶37

Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merit in the petition and is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from the fact that the impugned order at Annexure-M passed by the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra, the respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner clearly fell in error in refusing to admit the appeal and thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the untenable ground that that order of the Assistant Commissioner was based on direction issued by the Joint Commissioner who was of the same designation/cadre as that of respondent No.2. Under these circumstances, in order to enable respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner to pass fresh order on merits, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside Annexure-Q dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the reports, directions etc., issued by the Joint Commissioner which were referred to in the order of the Assistant Commissioner within a stipulated time frame bearing in mind the observations made in this order and the judgments of Apex Court referred to supra. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:11892 WP No. 4661 of 2025

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Petition is hereby partly allowed.

¶43

ii. The impugned order, Annexure-Q dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside.

¶44

iii. Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law

¶45

iv. Petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 21.04.2025 without awaiting further notice.

¶46

v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.2 after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and bearing in mind the observations made in the present order as well as the judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra.

¶47

vi. The respondent No.2 shall conclude the proceedings within a period of two months from 21.04.2025.

¶48

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶49

BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

M/S. Aring Prodev Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Aring Prodev Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bondada Engineering Limited Vs Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri Sugali Nagaraju Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Tamara Leisure Experiences Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Sri Syed Nizamuddin Vs Sri M Om Prakash

Nutricia International Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lgsto 63

Narayanaswamy Gangaraju Vs the Income Tax Officer