2019 (11) TMI 992 - HC - GST

Refund the input tax credit lying in the petitioner's erstwhile VAT account and CENVAT account respectively - petitioner has been declared as a non-performing asset by the Canara Bank - HELD THAT - Perusal of the facts and circumstances and the prayers sought for in these writ petitions would show that the petitioner seeks for refund of Input Tax Credit lying in the petitioner's erstwhile VAT account as well as CENVAT account. However, it is seen that the petitioner has filed these writ petitions straightaway without making any demand to that effect by way of refund claim before the concerned authorities. Needless to say that mandamus cannot be sought for without making any demand before appropriate authorities. I do not think that the petitioner can apprehend so and file the writ petitions seeking mandamus straighaway without making any demand before the concerned authorities. Unless the demand is made and it is not considered, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court and seek for such relief. This Writ Petition is disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to make such demand before the concerned authorities. If any such demand is made, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues involved:
Seeking mandamus for refund of input tax credit without making a demand before the authorities.

Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed to direct the first respondent to refund the input tax credit from the petitioner's VAT and CENVAT accounts, as the petitioner was declared a non-performing asset by Canara Bank. The court noted that the petitioner had not made any demand for refund before the appropriate authorities, which is a necessary step before seeking mandamus. The petitioner cannot approach the court directly without first making a demand for refund. The court emphasized that without the demand being considered by the authorities, the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief through the court.

The petitioner's counsel raised concerns that the authorities might deny the refund based on a specific provision of the GST law. However, the court did not find this to be a valid reason for the petitioner to bypass the requirement of making a formal demand for refund. The court highlighted the importance of following proper procedures and making demands before approaching the court for relief. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim but disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to make a demand before the concerned authorities.

In conclusion, the court emphasized the necessity of following the proper legal procedures, including making a formal demand for refund before seeking relief through a writ petition. The court granted the petitioner the opportunity to make the required demand before the authorities, with the assurance that such demand would be considered, and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with the law. The court also decided that no costs would be imposed in this case.