- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12771 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. HITACHI ENERGY INDIA LIMITED, PLOT NO. 4A, 5 6, 2ND STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 058. (REP. BY SHRI ARINDAM LAHIRI) HEAD OF TAXATION, INCORPRATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS-6), DGSTO-6, TTMC, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ADMN.), DGSTO-06, KIADB BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 058. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-075, DGSTO-06, KIADB BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HEMA KUMAR.K, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO. GST/RFD/AP. NO. 635/2024-25 DATED 31.12.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A ETC. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned Order- In-Appeal No. GST/RFD/AP. No. 635/2024-25 dated 31.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.1I enclosed at Annexure-A; b) issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned Refund Rejection Order No. ACCT/LGSTO-075/RFD/12/2024-25 dated 19.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 enclosed at Annexure-B; c) issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to sanction the refund of Rs.22,32,37,425/- along with interest in favour of the Petitioner; d) pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner having filed a refund application dated 31.03.2024, the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 15.04.2024 sanctioning refund infavour of petitioner and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent - Joint Commissioner for seeking prior approval. 4. In response to the same, 2nd respondent - Joint Commissioner issued a communication dated 13.05.2024 intimating 06 discrepancies in the refund application of the petitioner and calling upon the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner to consider the same. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication addressed by the Joint Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 15.05.2024 proposing to reject the entire refund claim on the basis of the aforesaid 06 discrepancies pointed out by the Joint Commissioner - 2nd respondent vide letter dated 13.05.2024. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 The petitioner having submitted a detailed reply dated 05.06.2024 to the said show cause notice, the 3rd respondent once again came to conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to refund and sanctioned the same vide order dated 11.06.2024 and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent - Joint Commissioner for prior approval. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner holding all issues infavour of the petitioner and forwarding the same to the Joint Commissioner only for approval, the 2nd respondent once again issued a communication dated 17.08.2024 intimating the very same discrepancies that he had already pointed out in his communication dated 13.05.2024 which were answered infavour of the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner who sanctioned the refund infavour of the petitioner vide order dated 11.06.2024. It is also contended that though the 3rd respondent committed an error in rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner merely on the basis of the communication by the Joint Commissioner who has erroneously reiterated the very same discrepancies already answered infavour of the petitioner, the Appeal filed by the petitioner before 1st - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 respondent - Appellate Authority was also dismissed on the sole ground that the 1st respondent - Joint Commissioner was of the same cadre/rank as of the 2nd respondent which is incorrect since the 1st respondent is an Appellate Authority/Quasi Judicial Authority against the order passed by the 3rd respondent and merely because the 3rd respondent had rejected the refund on the basis of a communication addressed by the 2nd respondent, the said circumstance could not have been made a basis by the 3rd respondent to reject the refund claim of the petitioner, which was answered by the 3rd respondent, not once, but twice in his favour. It is therefore, he submitted that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 & 3 deserve to be set aside and refund claim of the petitioner deserve to be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned AGA for respondents would support the impugned orders and submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed.. 8. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, the 06 discrepancies pointed out by the 2nd respondent- Joint - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 Commissioner in his communication dated 13.05.2024 were answered by the 3rd respondent infavour of the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in his first order dated 15.05.2024, the 3rd respondent had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled the sanction of refund and had forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for prior approval. So also pursuant to the 2nd respondent addressing a communication dated 13.05.2024, the 3rd respondent took into account the reply submitted by petitioner and once again came to the conclusion vide order dated 11.06.2024 that the petitioner was entitled to sanction of refund. Under these circumstances, merely because the 2nd respondent had issued a communication dated 17.08.2024 raising the very same discrepancies which he had raised in his earlier letter dated 13.05.2024, the said communication could not have been made basis or relied upon by the 3rd respondent in rejecting refund claim of the petitioner which is erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside. 10. In this context, it is relevant to state that however, in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent - Appellate Authority, the sole reason for the 1st respondent - - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 Appellate Authority to uphold the rejection order of the Assistant Commissioner was by coming to the conclusion that the 1st respondent was in the same cadre/rank as that of the 2nd respondent - Joint Commissioner. However, the 1st respondent failed to consider and appreciate that in so far as orders passed by the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner are concerned, the 1st respondent - Joint Commissioner functions or act as an Appellate Authority who would be entitled to reconsider, re-appreciate and revisit the appeal filed by petitioner on merits without being influenced by any observation/finding recorded by the 2nd respondent and mere similarity or commonality in the rank / cadre between 1st and 2nd respondent could not have been made the basis to summarily reject the appeal filed by petitioner especially, when the 2nd respondent was functioning or acting in his administrative capacity while the 1st respondent was functioning or acting as an Appellate Authority against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. 11. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by 1st respondent and remit the matter back to the 1st respondent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and by issuing certain directions in this regard. 12. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned order in Appeal dated 31.12.2024 Annexure-A is hereby set aside. (iii) The Appeal filed by petitioner is hereby restored to the file of 1st respondent/Appellate Authority. (iv) Matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (v) 1st respondent/Appellate Authority shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein and reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order independently in accordance with law, without being influenced by the communication, letters, findings, observations etc., passed or issued by the 2nd respondent and in accordance with law. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17643 WP No. 12771 of 2025 (vi) The 1st respondent - Appellate Authority shall dispose of the proceedings within a period of 03 months from the dated of appearance of the petitioner before the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority. (vii) The petitioner undertakes to appear before 1st respondent on 19.05.2025. (viii) Liberty is reserved infavour of petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents etc, which shall be considered by 1st Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20