2015 (8) TMI 386 - HC - Customs

Processing of Refund Refund claims was filed on 26th August, 2014, claiming refund in Indian rupees in sum specified therein, but refund applications was not processed Held that - Respondents request for adjournment by two weeks cannot be accepted Instead request that refund applications would be processed expeditiously would save more delay and was detrimental to either parties interests Thus respondent processing of refund applications, as expeditiously as possible Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought in Writ Petitions for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for processing refund application.
2. Concerns regarding delay in processing refund applications by the second respondent.
3. Request for adjournment by Respondent's counsel and its denial by the Court.
4. Court's direction for expeditious processing of refund applications within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this judgment pertains to the relief sought by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions, which is the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction for the processing of their refund applications by the second respondent. The petitioners had filed refund claims in Indian rupees on a specified date, but as of the filing of the Writ Petitions, the applications had not been processed by the concerned authority.

2. The Court noted the delay in processing the refund applications and expressed concern over the inaction in this regard. Despite the Respondent's counsel seeking an adjournment to file a reply, the Court, considering the circumstances, declined the request for adjournment. The Court highlighted that any further delay would be detrimental to the interests of both parties involved.

3. In response to the situation at hand, the Court issued a directive for the expeditious processing of the refund applications. The Court ordered that the applications be processed without further delay and that the outcome of the processing be communicated to the petitioners within a stipulated period of eight weeks from the date of the order. Importantly, the Court clarified that its directive did not imply any opinion on the maintainability or merits of the refund applications, emphasizing that the purpose was to ensure timely action on the pending applications.

4. Ultimately, the Writ Petitions were disposed of in accordance with the Court's direction for processing the refund applications within the specified timeframe. The judgment underscores the importance of timely action by the authorities responsible for handling refund claims and emphasizes the need for efficient resolution of such matters to safeguard the interests of the parties involved.