TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon Order. W.P. No. 17958 of 2022 is taken as a lead petition in deciding the issues involved. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the Endorsement, dated 28.05.2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Kadapa-I Circle, Kadapa, rejecting the request of the Petitioner for refund along with interest, as illegal, improper and incorrect. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: i. The Petitioner was engaged in execution of works contract having its Registered Office at Kadapa, with registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, ['CGST Act'], and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, ['SGST Act'], with effect from 01.07.2017. ii. It is said that, the Petitioner availed Input Tax Cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application is rejected for an amount of Rupees "Zero". iv. Believing that the applications made by the Petitioner were allowed and as the amount was not being credited in-spite of sanction, the Petitioner addressed a letter on 11.06.2020 to the first Respondent requesting him to release the refund at the earliest. As there was no response, the Petitioner once again brought to the notice of the first Respondent, the inaction on their part in not releasing the amount in-spite of the Order. The said reminder was on 20.05.2022. v. The Petitioner also claims to have brought to the notice of the first Respondent the Circular, dated 17.11.2021, issued by CBIC, New Delhi, stipulating that any amount unutilized in Electronic Cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Ledger', and also the concluding portion of the Order clearly describe an amount of Rs.85,14,656/- being sanctioned under Sub-section 5 of Section 54 of the Act. He further submits that, even as on today, the website/portal shows acceptance of refund application of the Petitioner. In view of all the circumstances, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the authority erred in issuing endorsement. 5. Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the Respondents, opposed the same contending that the application of the Petitioner was not allowed, as there appears to be an error in the Order passed by the first Respondent. He would submit that, the Order relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be passed in an application made by the Petitioner seeking refund in view of the earlier order passed, the said endorsement is liable to be set-aside, as bad in law and, accordingly, the same is set-aside. 7. At this stage Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the Respondents, would submit that the Order, dated 19.03.2020, passed in favour of the Petitioner was an erroneous one, which is apparent from a reading of the proceedings and the material on record. The same is disputed by Sri.S. Dwarakanath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, stating that, if really it was a mistake, steps should have been taken to get the same rectified, but till date the same is not done.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on hand, as it relates to excess input credit and that the case of the Petitioner falls under Section 54(1) of Act. He further submits that, if the matter is remanded back now for consideration afresh, the Petitioner will be losing interest of two [02] years, since the authority, in all probability, would deal with the request of the Petitioner from the date of Order of this Court unless otherwise it is made clear. 11. Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the Respondents, would submit that the matter may be remanded back by treating the application of the Petitioner as made in the year 2020 as the application for refund of excess credit, so that the grievance of the Petitioner that he will b....