Case Law Details
Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd. Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment by the Karnataka High Court concerning Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd. Vs Union of India, the Court discussed the extended limitation period for Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund claims. The petitioner sought to quash a previous order rejecting their request for an ITC refund, citing the ground of limitation.
Analysis: The ITC refund claim by the petitioner for the month of November 2018 was previously denied by the Assistant Commissioner due to time limitations. Upon appealing to the third respondent appellate authority, the appeal was rejected, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The petitioner’s counsel contended that this issue is well addressed in various orders from the Supreme Court and the same High Court, referencing the case of M/s.Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Union of India.
Although the respondent’s counsel acknowledged the petitioner’s claim, he argued that the initial rejection happened before a specific notification was issued on 15.07.2022, hence no error could be found. However, the Court emphasized that it had previously adjudicated the question at hand in the referenced writ petition, necessitating the resolution of the current petition in the same vein.
Conclusion: Following its analysis, the Karnataka High Court decided to set aside the previous order rejecting the refund claim and directed the Assistant Commissioner to reassess the application in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the impugned order Annexure – A dated 25.04.2022 passed in Appeal No.55/2021/BM/GST/1305/22 by the respondent No.3, wherein the prayer made by the petitioner for refund of input tax credit has been rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner’s prayer for refund of input credit tax for the month of November 2018 was rejected by the 4th respondent on the ground of limitation. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent appellate authority, who has passed the impugned order vide Annexure- A dated 25.04.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the series of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. She has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.23995/2022 disposed of on 13.01.2023 in the case of M/s.Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Union of India and others.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents who has filed his statement of objections does not dispute the said submission made by petitioner’s counsel. However he contends that the order of rejection was passed by the Assistant Commissioner prior to the notification dated 15.07.2022 and therefore no fault can be found in the same.
6. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that this Court has already considered the question involved in this writ petition in W.P. No.23995/2022 and therefore, even this writ petition is required to be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the said petition by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure – A dated 25.04.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside and the petitioner’s application for refund is restored and the 4th respondent is directed to consider the same afresh in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall appear before the 4th respondent without further notice on 06.07.2023.
