Balkrishna Industries Limited VS Union Of India

In this case, the petitioner was represented by learned advocates Mr. Mihir Joshi and Mr. Dhaval Shah, while the respondents were represented by learned advocates Mr. Ankit Shah for respondents 1, 2, and 5, and Mr. Dhaval Vyas for respondent 4. Respondents 3 and 5, though served with notice, did not appear in court

1. Rule was made returnable forthwith, with learned advocates Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. Dhaval Vyas waiving service of Rule for their respective respondents

2. The petitioner filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order dated 30 June 2020 by respondent 3, the appellate authority, which allowed a refund to the petitioner after debiting the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) from the credit ledger account of the petitioner

The petitioner also requested to set aside the communication dated 14 July 2020 issued by respondent 3 regarding the same matter

Additionally, the petitioner sought to overturn the original order dated 14 July 2020, which had been appealed and was adverse to the petitioner

Furthermore, the petitioner aimed to set aside paragraph 3.2 of the Circular dated 4 September 2018.

In the case heard, learned advocates Mr. Mihir Joshi and Mr. Dhaval Shah represented the petitioner, while learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah represented respondents no. 1, 2, and 5, and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas represented respondent no. 4. Despite being served with notice, respondents no. 3 and 5 did not appear

The court declared the rule returnable immediately, and advocates Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. Dhaval Vyas waived the service of the rule for their respective respondents

The petitioner filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking to overturn the order dated 30.06.2020 issued by respondent no. 3 appellate authority. The order had allowed a refund to the petitioner by debiting the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) from the petitioner’s credit ledger account

The petitioner also sought to set aside the communication dated 14.07.2020 from respondent no. 3 related to this matter. Additionally, the petitioner aimed to annul the order dated 14.07.2020 to the extent it was unfavorable to them

The petitioner requested the court to revoke paragraph 3.2 of the Circular dated 04.09.2018. They demanded the refund of Rs. 21,71,74,611/- of unutilized input tax credit without any IGST debit, along with interest

The petitioner claimed interest on Rs. 14,94,881/- for the period exceeding 60 days from 17.04.2019 (the date of the refund application) until the actual payment

The petitioner, a tyre manufacturer with a factory in Bhuj, is registered with the Goods & Services Tax Authorities. On 17.04.2019, they applied for a refund of unutilized credit amounting to Rs. 31,58,80,475/-, covering CGST, SGST, and cess under Section 54(3)(i) of the Act and Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, based on zero-rated supplies made

Under Section 16 of the Act, a registered person is allowed to claim credit for the input tax paid. The petitioner claimed that they complied with the relevant rules by debiting an amount equal to the refund claim from their electronic credit ledger, utilizing the available GST and SGST balance at the time of the application.

In the case involving the petitioner, represented by Mr. Mihir Joshi and Mr. Dhaval Shah, and the respondents represented by Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. Dhaval Vyas, the following points were addressed:

1. The petition was filed as a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking to overturn an order dated 30.06.2020 issued by respondent no.3 (appellate authority). The order in question allowed a refund to the petitioner by debiting the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) from the petitioner’s credit ledger account.

2. Additionally, the petitioner sought to nullify a communication dated 14.07.2020 from respondent no.3 and an original order dated 14.07.2020, to the extent that it was unfavorable to the petitioner. The petitioner also aimed to overturn paragraph 3.2 of a Circular dated 04.09.2018.

3. The petitioner requested a refund of Rs. 21,71,74,611/- of unutilized input tax credit without any IGST debit, along with interest on Rs. 14,94,881/- for the period beyond 60 days from 17.04.2019 (the date of the refund application) until the actual payment was made.

4. The petitioner, a tyre manufacturer with a factory in Bhuj, had applied on 17.04.2019 for a refund of unutilized credit amounting to Rs. 31,58,80,475/- under Section 54(3)(i) of the Act and Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, on the basis of making zero-rated supplies.

5. The petitioner followed Section 16 of the Act, which allows registered persons to take credit on input tax for goods and services. The petitioner complied with the rules by debiting the refund claim amount in the electronic credit ledger from the GST and SGST balance available on the application date.

6. Respondent no.4, the Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, acknowledged the petitioner’s application but issued a show-cause notice on 10.05.2019 proposing to reject the refund claim. The grounds for rejection included an incorrect turnover amount for zero-rated supplies and the petitioner’s failure to follow the procedure in para 3.2 of the Circular dated 04.09.2018 by not debiting the IGST amount of Rs. 21,71,74,611/- available in the balance.

7. Despite being served with a court notice, respondents no. 3 and 5 did not appear in court.

8. Rule returnable forthwith was issued, with Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. Dhaval Vyas waiving the service of Rule for the respective respondents.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: