Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Siddhivinayak Infrastructure, approached the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the competent authority regarding reimbursement of GST amounting to ₹42,51,126/-.

The petitioner submitted that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had already examined the matter and recommended reimbursement of the GST amount. However, despite such recommendation, the final decision was pending before respondent No. 2.

The petitioner therefore requested the Court to direct respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the recommendation already forwarded by respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

The petitioner also relied upon an earlier order passed by the Bombay High Court in an identical matter where the authority had been granted 90 days to make the payment.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether respondent No. 2 should be directed to consider the recommendation already made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 regarding reimbursement of GST.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for expeditious disposal of the reimbursement claim.
  3. Whether the Court should follow its earlier decision passed in an identical matter.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had already completed the examination of the claim.
  • The competent officers had recommended reimbursement of ₹42,51,126/-.
  • The petitioner argued that only a final administrative decision by respondent No. 2 remained pending.
  • Reliance was placed upon the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in WP No. 8033 of 2022 (Rishu Kichu Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Others) wherein similar relief had been granted.
  • The petitioner sought a direction requiring respondent No. 2 to decide the recommendation within a reasonable time.

Respondents’ Arguments

  • Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were represented before the Court.
  • The recommendation made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 regarding reimbursement had already been forwarded.
  • The matter thereafter required consideration by respondent No. 2 for passing the appropriate order.

Court Order / Findings

The Bombay High Court observed that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had already recommended reimbursement of ₹42,51,126/- in favour of the petitioner.

The Court noted that the only pending action was the decision to be taken by respondent No. 2.

Considering that the petitioner sought only a limited and innocuous relief, the Court disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice to respondent No. 2.

The Court expressed the expectation that respondent No. 2 shall take an appropriate decision on the recommendation within 90 days, without being influenced by any observations contained in the order.

Important Clarification

  • The High Court did not itself order payment of the GST reimbursement.
  • The Court merely directed the competent authority to take a decision on the recommendation already made by the concerned officers.
  • The order reinforces the principle that where departmental recommendations are pending before the competent authority, the authority should decide the matter within a reasonable period.
  • The Court followed its earlier approach adopted in an identical case involving GST reimbursement.

Sections  Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court
  • Administrative decision relating to GST reimbursement

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785572573_2561compressed.pdf  

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.