2025 (1) TMI 831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....KRISHNA S DIXIT) Revenue has preferred this Intra-Court Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 for laying a challenge to the learned Single Judge's order dated 18.04.2024 whereby Respondent - Assessee's W.P. No. 9075/2024 (T-RES) having been favoured the Refund Decline Orders dated 06.09.2021 & its confirmation in Appeal order 30.09.2023 have been quashed. Further, Assessee's Refund Application dated 05.07.2021 having been allowed, Petitioners are directed to refund the entire GST amount of Rs. 2,53,58,268/- within eight weeks. 2. BRIEF FACT MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2.1 The Respondent herein, namely, M/S NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, entered into a contract with M/s Mavin Switch Gears and Control Private Limited for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ighted that the supplier, who was the taxpayer, was obligated to issue credit notes for the cancelled contract and declare these in their tax return, adjusting the tax liability accordingly. It was concluded by the Appellate Authority that the taxpayer could not seek a refund of SGST & CGST as the tax paid on the advance was the supplier's responsibility. 3. Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the Revenue argues that factual matrix that would give raise to a claim for refund needed to be ascertained at the hands of authorities and therefore, learned Single Judge could not have undertaken that exercise; the Refund Decline Order made by the original authority having been examined is confirmed by the statutory appellate authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....culate premise, which cannot be faltered. 5.2 Learned Single Judge at para 7 of the impugned judgment has rightly observed as under: "7. In my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case viz., the payment of sum of Rs. 14,08,79,262/- paid by the petitioner to the vendor, payment of Rs. 2,53,58,268/- towards GST by the vendor to respondents and refund of entire amount of Rs. 14,08,79,262/- by encashment of the bank guarantee by the petitioner and other material on record would cumulatively indicate that there was no GST liability either by the petitioner or his vendor were concerned and by applying doctrine/principles of unjust enrichment and restitution and since the aforesaid GST amount is lying with ....