Page 116 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

18 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
8. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose
of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall
be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evi-
dence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 18 (Kar.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Krishna S. Dixit, J.
DPK ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition No. 40904 of 2018(T-Res), decided on 11-2-2020
Recovery of Dues - Adjustment of refund - Suo motu adjustment -
Natural justice - Unilateral decision to adjust part of sanctioned refund against
disputed interest liability not only violating natural justice but also falls short
of fairness standards expected of statutory authorities - Existence of power to
recover dues not meaning that same can be done suo motu without grant of
hearing - Accordingly, impugned order set aside - Matter remanded to authori-
ties for consideration afresh after hearing petitioner and decide issue within
eight weeks - Section 79 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article
226 of Constitution of India. [paras 3, 4]
Matter remanded
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate, for the Peti-
tioner.
Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate for C. Shashikan-
tha, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The short grievance of the petitioner/assessee is against the
unilateral appropriation of a part of refundable amount in terms of the im-
pugned FORM-GST-RFD-06, dated 13-6-2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A,
to the arguable dues of other Assessment Year/s.
2. Learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, Shri C. Shashikantha, on re-
quest having accepted notice for the respondents resists the writ petition making
submission in justification of the impugned order.
3. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and having pe-
rused the petition papers, this Court grants limited reprieve to the petitioner be-
cause :
(a) there is force in the contention of the petitioner’s Counsel that the
appropriation of money being a mode of recovery of dues under the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, could not have been
done sans notice to the Assessee, the contra contention of the Coun-
sel for the Revenue militating against the principles of natural jus-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  180