Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Goods and Services Tax

Telangana HC Directs Refund Consideration for Long-Pending VAT/CST Refund Claim

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 7219
Case Name
Bajaj Electricals Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) STU-1 (Telangana High Court)
Appeal Number
Premium Access
Date of Judgement/Order
Premium Access
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Bajaj Electricals Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) STU-1 (Telangana High Court)

The Telangana High Court entertained a writ petition filed by Bajaj Electricals Limited seeking refund of ₹93.86 lakh allegedly due under various assessment and appellate orders passed under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (TVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The petitioner contended that despite favorable orders and entitlement to refund, the State Tax authorities failed to release the amount along with statutory interest.

Introduction

In M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Others, the petitioner approached the Telangana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the State Tax Department in granting refund of amounts arising out of multiple orders passed under the erstwhile VAT and CST regimes.

The case raises an important issue regarding the obligation of tax authorities to process and release legitimate refund claims within a reasonable period and in accordance with statutory provisions.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited, claimed that a sum of ₹93,86,172/- had become refundable pursuant to several orders passed under the TVAT Act, 2005 and CST Act, 1956, including:

  • A.O. No.2053 dated 28.01.2017
  • A.O. No.48057 dated 10.12.2018
  • A.O. No.80499 dated 16.12.2020
  • A.O. No.56161 dated 16.06.2020
  • A.O. No.8876 dated 28.03.2022
  • A.O. No.811 dated 31.07.2024

According to the petitioner:

  • The refund amount remained unpaid despite the orders becoming effective.
  • The authorities failed to process and release the refund.
  • Such inaction was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions governing refunds under the TVAT Act and CST Act.
  • The petitioner was also entitled to statutory interest on the delayed refund.

An interlocutory application was also filed seeking an interim direction for immediate refund pending disposal of the writ petition.

Want to Read the Complete Judgment?

You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.

Read on with Premium
Goes straight to payment. GST invoice included.

One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.

Advertisement

Author Info

ADV AKRUTI GOYAL (CA)
Qualification: LL.B / Advocate
Company: ADV AKRUTI GOYAL, ADVOCATE AND LEGAL CONSULTANT
Location: Hyderabad, Telangana
Articles Published: 280

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.