Appeal over denied tax refund after State concedes entitlement, appellate rejection set aside and refund verification ordered

The dominant issue was whether the appellate authority's order rejecting the petitioner's appeal against denial of a refund could stand when the State conceded, on instructions, that the petitioner was in effect entitled to refund. Based on this concession and the absence of any remaining live dispute, the HC held that no further adjudication was required and set aside the impugned appellate order. The HC directed the respondents to verify the relevant records and grant refund of the amount found lawfully due to the petitioner.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, in view of the Revenue's express instructions conceding eligibility, the appellate order rejecting the refund claim should be set aside and the writ disposed of without further adjudication on merits.

(ii) Whether the Court should direct the authorities to process and grant refund by verifying records, and within what timeline, once entitlement is accepted by the respondents.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Setting aside the appellate rejection in light of the respondents' concession

Legal framework: The Court proceeded on the basis that the impugned order was an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST-2017/CGST-2017, concerning rejection of a refund claim, and considered the respondents' official instructions (communicated by the State's counsel) stating that the petitioner was eligible for refund.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that earlier it had sought clarification because the petitioner pointed to inconsistent treatment of an identical refund issue in other matters, including a prior order in the petitioner's own case allowing refund in a similar situation. Upon the matter being taken up again, the State's counsel produced written instructions (email) indicating that, after discussion and examination, the authorities had found the petitioner eligible for refund. The Court treated these instructions as an effective acceptance by the respondents that the petitioner was entitled to refund, rendering any further adjudication unnecessary.

Conclusion: Since the respondents accepted the petitioner's eligibility for refund, the Court held that "nothing further remains to be adjudicated" and consequently set aside the impugned appellate order rejecting the appeal/refund.

Issue (ii): Direction to verify records and grant refund within a specified timeframe

Legal framework: The Court relied on the respondents' position that the petitioner is entitled to refund "in accordance with law," and framed relief by directing administrative verification and disbursement.

Interpretation and reasoning: Having set aside the appellate order on the basis of the Revenue's concession, the Court directed the respondents to verify the records and refund the amount to which the petitioner is entitled. The Court emphasized expeditious compliance and specified a preferred outer limit for completion after communication of the order.

Conclusion: The Court directed the respondents to verify records and refund the admissible amount as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from communication of the order.

---