DPK Engineers Private Limited VS Union of India

The petitioner/assessee has raised a grievance concerning the unilateral action taken by the authorities to appropriate a portion of the refundable amount as specified in FORM-GST-RFD-06, dated June 13, 2018. This action, detailed in Annexure-A, has led to the appropriation of funds towards outstanding dues for other assessment years without the petitioner’s consent or proper notification. The petitioner argues that this action was taken without a fair assessment or due process, thereby violating their rights to a fair and transparent handling of their tax refunds. The grievance underscores the need for adherence to procedural fairness and the proper consideration of the petitioner’s claims and entitlements before any funds are diverted to settle arrears from previous years. The petitioner seeks a review and rectification of this unilateral decision to ensure that their refunds are processed correctly and that any dues are settled through appropriate legal and procedural channels.

The central issue in this case revolves around the petitioner’s grievance concerning the unilateral appropriation of a portion of a refundable amount, as outlined in FORM-GST-RFD-06 dated June 13, 2018. The petitioner challenges this action, asserting that it unjustly allocates part of the refundable amount to cover alleged dues from other assessment years. The relevant document, FORM-GST-RFD-06, is attached as Annexure-A for reference.

In response, the learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, Shri C. Shashikantha, who was present upon request and accepted notice for the respondents, argued in defense of the impugned order. He provided submissions that aimed to justify the decision to appropriate the funds as described in the form.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the relevant documentation, the Court decided to grant the petitioner a limited reprieve. The Court’s decision reflects an acknowledgment of the petitioner’s concerns, although it does not fully overturn the impugned order. The specifics of the relief granted are not detailed in the summary, but it indicates a cautious approach to the petitioner’s request, suggesting that the Court may have recognized some merit in the petitioner’s position while still upholding aspects of the original order.

The petitioner has raised a grievance concerning the unilateral deduction of a portion of a refundable amount, as per the FORM-GST-RFD-06 issued on June 13, 2018. This form is crucial because it details the appropriation of funds against outstanding dues from different Assessment Years, as outlined in Annexure-A. The legal representation for the respondents, led by the Learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, Shri C. Shashikantha, opposed the writ petition, defending the legitimacy of the impugned order.

After a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the documentation, the Court decided to grant the petitioner a limited reprieve. The Court acknowledged the validity of the petitioner’s contention, which challenges the use of appropriation as a method for recovering dues under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument that such appropriation practices need to be scrutinized carefully, suggesting that there may be procedural or substantive issues with how the dues were being claimed against the refundable amount. The decision indicates a recognition of the potential need for a more balanced approach in the recovery of tax-related dues.

The grievance of the petitioner, an assessee, revolves around the unilateral deduction of a portion of a refundable amount as indicated in FORM-GST-RFD-06 dated June 13, 2018. This action, as detailed in Annexure-A, was applied to the outstanding dues from previous Assessment Years. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. C. Shashikantha, appeared for the respondents and opposed the petition, defending the appropriateness of the impugned order.

Upon examining the arguments presented by both parties, the court found merit in the petitioner’s claims. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the appropriation of funds under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, should not have been executed without prior notice to the assessee, as this practice contravened the principles of natural justice. The court concurred, highlighting that such a unilateral decision on appropriation lacked the requisite fairness and transparency expected in dealings with citizens.

Furthermore, the court acknowledged the argument from the petitioner’s counsel that statutory authorities, like the respondents, are required to maintain a high standard of fairness. The unilateral nature of the appropriation did not align with these fairness standards, thus, the court decided to grant a limited reprieve to the petitioner. The court’s decision underscores the need for procedural fairness and adequate notice before any deductions or recoveries are made from an assessee’s refundable amount.

The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Shri C. Shashikantha, who was requested to represent the respondents, defended the impugned order, arguing its validity. Upon reviewing the arguments and the documents submitted, the Court granted limited relief to the petitioner. The Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel that the appropriation of funds, being a method of recovering dues under the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, should not have been executed without notifying the assessee, as this action contravenes the principles of natural justice. The Court highlighted that unilateral decisions regarding fund appropriation are inconsistent with the standards of fairness that statutory authorities are expected to uphold.

Moreover, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s argument that statutory authorities must act fairly when dealing with citizens, and that a unilateral recovery method falls short of these fairness standards. The argument by the Revenue’s counsel, suggesting that the Act empowers the respondents to recover tax, interest, and penalties, was not persuasive. The Court clarified that while the existence of such powers is acknowledged, their exercise without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard was unjustified.

Consequently, the writ petition was partly successful. The Court annulled the portion of the impugned order that appropriated a part of the refundable amount, thereby setting it aside. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity of providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard before any unilateral action is taken by the authorities.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: