Divyasree Tarbus Builders Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to sanction a refund as requested in a letter dated 13.11.2025. The dispute arose after recovery of the entire amount pursuant to a summary of demand (Annexure-C), despite the petitioner’s intention to challenge the appellate authority’s order under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The petitioner contended that due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal and in view of Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, recovery proceedings ought not to have been initiated. It was submitted that as per paragraph 6 of the circular, once a taxpayer furnishes a declaration of intention to file an appeal, recovery proceedings should not be resorted to. However, in the present case, the entire demand amount had been recovered without granting the benefit under paragraph 6. Accordingly, refund was sought.
The learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had not made a request to the proper officer as required under the circular. It was further submitted that recovery was rightly effected and that interest would not be payable as the petitioner had not complied with paragraph 6 of the circular. It was also argued that the benefit under paragraph 6 would be subject to payment of the pre-deposit amount contemplated under Section 112 of the CGST Act.
