Rungta and Sons v. Uttarakhand Seeds and Trai Development Corporation / The Superintendent Range-III, CGST / The Deputy Commissioner SGST
[Citation -2020-LL-0813-30]

Citation 2020-LL-0813-30
Appellant Name Rungta and Sons
Respondent Name Uttarakhand Seeds and Trai Development Corporation / The Superintendent Range-III, CGST / The Deputy Commissioner SGST
Court HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Relevant Act SGST
Date of Order 13/08/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags security deposit • compensation • excess tax • refund


WPMS No. 1272 of 2020 Hon ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Standing Counsel with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 5 to 7. Heard learned counsel for parties through video conferencing. Petitioner is partnership firm, which deals in Seeds, Food Grains etc. According to petitioner, he purchased rejected wheat from Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. (respondent no. 1 herein) in year 2017. It is further case of petitioner that respondent no. 1 wrongly deducted G.S.T., amounting to `10,23,484/- from security deposit made by petitioner with respondent no. 1; although, as per advance ruling issued by Appellate Authority, Goods & Service Tax for State of Uttarakhand, damaged wheat seeds attracted NIL rate of G.S.T. It is further case of petitioner that, despite repeated representations, Competent Authority in respondent no. 1 has not taken any decision in matter and has not initiated any steps for claiming refund of G.S.T. from Competent Authority. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: (i) issue writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1-3 to correct outward supplies vis- -vis petitioner firm in Annual Return 2017-2018 and apply for refund of excess tax paid via RDF 01 and pay/ refund entire amount collected from petitioner as GST alongwith interest thereon forthwith. (ii) issue writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding GST Authorities/ Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 to refund amount of GST wrongly charged & collected from it by Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. (iii) Award suitable exemplary compensation to petitioner firm from respondents for illegally and wrongly charging/ recovering GST amount on rejected wheat seeds without any authority/ sanction of law and for withholding same without legal sanction. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that, in view of Section 54 (8) (e) of G.S.T. Act, prayer no. 2 cannot be granted to petitioner. He further submits that, as per statutory scheme, G.S.T. can be refunded to same dealer from whom it is collected. Therefore, there cannot be any direction to Competent Authority to refund G.S.T. to petitioner, as it was deposited by respondent no. 1. Having regard to facts & circumstances of case, writ petition is disposed of with direction to Managing Director, Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. to take decision on petitioner s representation dated 20.09.2019 (annexed as Annexure No. 12 to writ petition) as early as possible; but, not later than eight weeks from date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) Navin 13.08.2020 Rungta and Sons v. Uttarakhand Seeds and Trai Development Corporation / Superintendent Range-III, CGST / Deputy Commissioner SGST
Report Error