DPK Engineers Private Limited v. Union of India / The Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru / The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, South Division-1, Bengaluru
[Citation -2020-LL-0211-81]

Citation 2020-LL-0211-81
Appellant Name DPK Engineers Private Limited
Respondent Name Union of India / The Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru / The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, South Division-1, Bengaluru
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 11/02/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags interest liability • refundable amount • recovery of dues • recovery of tax

1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.40904 OF 2018 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/s. DPK Engineers Private Limited Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director Shri S. Sampath Raman, No.109, ADA Raanga Mandira Building, JC Road, Bengaluru-560 002. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate) AND: 1. Union of India Represented by it Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Rashtrpati Bhawan, Defence Head Quarters, New Delhi-110 001. 2. Commissioner of Central Tax Bengalurur South Commissionerate, CR Building, PB No.5400, Queens Road, Bengaluru-560 001. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, South Division-1, Bengaluru South Commissionerate, 2nd Floor, BMTC Building, Kanakapura Road, Banashankari, Bengaluru-560 070. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate for Sri C. Shashikantha, Advocate for R-1 to R-3) 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash portion of impugned refund sanction order dated 13.06.2018 (Annexure-A) passed by R-3 in adjusting part of sanctioned refund amount towards disputed interest liability; and thereby direct R-3 to release refund amount of Rs.13,33,069/- to petitioner. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in B Group, this day, Court made following: ORDER short grievance of petitioner/assessee is against unilateral appropriation of part of refundable amount in terms of impugned FORM-GST-RFD-06 dated 13.06.2018 copy whereof is at Annexure-A, to arguable dues of other Assessment Year/s. 2. Learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, Shri C Shashikantha, on request having accepted notice for respondents resists writ petition making submission in justification of impugned order. 3. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused petition papers, this Court grants limited reprieve to petitioner because: a) there is force in contention of petitioner s counsel that appropriation of money being mode of recovery of dues under Central Goods & Services Act, 3 2017, could not have been done sans notice to Assessee, contra contention of counsel for Revenue militating against principles of natural justice; therefore, unilateral decision as to appropriation ought not to have been made; b) there is also force in contention of counsel for Assessee that respondents being statutory authorities, need to practice fairness while dealing with citizen and that, unilateral recovery by way of appropriation falls short of fairness standards which respondents are expected to maintain; and, c) contention of learned counsel for Revenue that Act vests power in respondents to take measures for recovery of tax, interest & penalties that have fallen due does not come to rescue of Revenue; existence of power is one thing and its exercise is another; existence per se does not justify exercise; no case is made out for excluding opportunity of hearing to Assessee before making impugned order. In above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; that part of impugned which appropriated portion of refundable amount having been set at naught, 4 other part has been left intact; matter is remitted to answering respondent for consideration afresh after hearing petitioner or his agent, within period of eight weeks. It is open to respondents to solicit any information or documents from petitioner as are necessary for fresh consideration of matter; however, in guise of such solicitation delay shall not be brooked. It hardly needs to be stated that answering respondent shall inform petitioner result of consideration pursuant to remand, failure whereof shall be viewed seriously. No costs, now. Sd/- JUDGE HA/- DPK Engineers Private Limited v. Union of India / Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru / Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, South Division-1, Bengaluru
Report Error