Case Details: Hooghly Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (2026) 38 Centax 182 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Om Narayan Rai, J.
- Shri Avra Mazumder, Ms. Alisha Das & Ms. Elina Dey, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Nilotpal Chatterjee, Tanoy Chakraborty & Saptak Sanyal, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed an application seeking refund, which was rejected by the proper officer. An appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 was also rejected by the appellate authority, upholding the refund rejection. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court and brought to the notice of the Court that in the petitioner’s own case, the appellate authority had allowed the request for refund under similar circumstances. During the course of proceedings, the respondent placed on record instructions submitting that the petitioner was eligible for refund and that the department had, in effect, accepted the petitioner’s entitlement to refund. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that once the respondent had accepted the eligibility of the petitioner for refund, nothing further remained to be adjudicated by the appellate authority. The Court held that the appellate order rejecting the refund could not be sustained in view of the respondent’s submission accepting the petitioner’s entitlement. It was held that the impugned appellate order was liable to be set aside. The High Court accordingly directed the respondents to verify the records and issue the refund due to the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks, under Section 54, read with Section 56, of the CGST Act and West Bengal GST Act.
