Case Law Details
Biju. K. P Vs Assistant Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Biju. K. P, seeking a refund of excess tax payments. The petitioner, engaged in works contracts, had erroneously paid taxes on behalf of his brother-in-law. This article delves into the details of the case and analyzes the court’s judgment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Case:
- Biju. K. P, a registered assessee under CGST/SGST Act, paid taxes on behalf of his brother-in-law, Vibin V.C.
- The brother-in-law failed to discharge tax liability for January and March 2018 until October 2020.
- The petitioner sought a refund for the excess tax paid, filing an application under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
2. Rejection of Refund Application:
- The court documents mention the rejection of the petitioner’s refund application (Ext.P1) on the grounds of not meeting the time limit prescribed by Section 54(1) of the CGST Act.
- The petitioner subsequently filed another application (Ext.P4) on March 9, 2022, for the same refund.
3. Court’s Decision:
- The court, in its judgment, stated that there were no grounds to entertain the writ petition.
- Emphasis was placed on the petitioner filing an application as late as March 9, 2022, for a matter related to an order dated December 17, 2020.
- The lack of merit in the writ petition led to its dismissal, with any pending interlocutory applications also dismissed.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s dismissal of Biju. K. P’s writ petition highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines. The detailed analysis provides insights into the background, rejection grounds, and the court’s reasoning. This judgment sets a precedent for cases involving the refund of excess tax payments under the CGST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition seeking a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on Ext.P4 request for refund of the excess payment of tax made by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is engaged in execution of various works contracts and is a registered assessee under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST/SGST Act’, for short). It is said that the petitioner’s brother-in-law, Sri. Vibin V.C., also is engaged in execution of the works contracts and is also an assessee under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act. It is submitted that the brother-in-law of the petitioner did not discharge tax liability for the months of January and March, 2018, in the financial year 2017-18, for an amount of Rs.1,09,292/- and committed default till 26.10.2020. The petitioner wrongly remitted tax dues as against his brother-in-law for the said period amounting to Rs.1,09,292/- on 26.10.2020. His brother-in-law also filed returns for the months of January and March, 2018 and paid the tax amounting to Rs.1,09,292/- on 26.10.2020. In view of the above, the petitioner moved an application before the assessing authority dated 11.12.2020 under Section 54 of the CGST Act claiming refund of the excess tax paid by him. However, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected vide Ext.P1 order stating that it was not filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 54(1) of the said Act, i.e. two years from the relevant date as prescribed for the period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner moved another application, Ext.P4, dated 9.3.2022 for the same.
3. I do not find any ground to entertain such a writ petition, which has been filed seeking for a direction to consider order dated 17.12.2020 afresh by filing an application as late as on 9.3.2022.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Author Bio
