Karnataka HC in the case of M/s. DPK Engineers Private Limited

Case Covered:

M/s. DPK Engineers Private Limited

Versus

Union of India

Facts of the Case:

The short grievance of the petitioner/ assessee is against the unilateral appropriation of a part of the refundable amount in terms of the impugned Form GST RFD-06 dated 13.06.2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, to the arguable dues of other Assessment Year/s.

Learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, Shri C Shashikantha, on request having accepted notice for the respondents resists the writ petition making a submission in justification of the impugned order.

Observations of the Court:

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants limited reprieve to the petitioner because:

a) there is the force in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the appropriation of money being a mode of recovery of dues under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, could not have been done sans notice to the Assessee, the contra contention of the counsel for the Revenue militating against the principles of natural justice; therefore, a unilateral decision as to the appropriation ought not to have been made;

b) there is also force in the contention of the counsel for the Assessee that the respondents being statutory authorities, need to practice fairness while dealing with the citizen and that, the unilateral recovery by way of appropriation falls short of fairness standards which the respondents are expected to maintain.

The Decision of the Court:

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in parts; that part of the impugned which appropriated a portion of refundable amount having been set as naught, the other part has been left intact; matter is remitted to the answering respondent for consideration afresh after hearing the petitioner or his agent, within a period of eight weeks.

It is open to the respondents to solicit any information or documents from the petitioner as are necessary for the fresh consideration of the matter; however, in the guise of such solicitation delay shall not be brooked.

It hardly needs to be stated that the answering respondent shall inform the petitioner the result of consideration pursuant to the remand, failure whereof shall be viewed seriously.

No costs, now.

Read & Download the Full Decision in pdf: