2024 (5) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the order dated 06.09.2021 was rejected by respondent No. 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that pursuant to the Agreement dated 29.05.2017 entered into between the petitioner and its vendor by name viz., M/s. Mavin Switchgears and Control Pvt.Ltd., the petitioner paid advance of Rs.  14,08,79,262/- to the aforesaid vendor as well as GST of Rs. 2,53,58,268/-. Subsequently, the aforesaid vendor did not supply goods under the contract to the petitioner and the contract having been cancelled, the petitioner called upon the aforesaid vendor to return/refund the entire advance amount. Since, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... why the refund application was rejected. Further the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 at Annexure-A will indicate that despite several judgments having been referred to and relied upon by the petitioner, respondent No. 1/Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that eligibility criteria under Section 54 of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax, 2017, have not been met by the petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to note that respondent No. 1 has come to the conclusion that supplier/vendor was the person ought to have issued credit note and thereafter, it was open for the petitioner to seek refund and without doing so, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of the GST. Respondent No. 1 has a....