2022 (2) TMI 53 - HC - GST

Refund of IGST amount and duty drawback - Section 54 (6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the applications filed by the Petitioner for seeking refund from IGST is pending which was made vide letters dated 03/12/2021, 08/12/2021 and 16/12/2021. The Petitioner had also applied for duty drawback by those letters. There is no response received by the Petitioner to those letters/applications for seeking refund of IGST as well as duty draw back till date. In view of the fact that the applications for refund of IGST and duty drawback are still pending, it is directed that the Respondent No. 3 to decide the applications for refund of IGST and duty drawback made by the Petitioner referred in aforesaid within a period of four weeks from today without fail. It is made clear that if according to the Respondent No. 3 any further investigation is required to be made before granting final refund of IGST as well as duty drawback, the Respondent No. 3 shall pass the order for provisional refund within the time prescribed in terms of Section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for writ of mandamus seeking refund of IGST and duty drawback, pending applications for refund, investigations by Respondents, applicability of Circulars and judgments, direction for decision on refund applications, granting personal hearing, provisional refund order, communication of decision, right to file further proceedings, court's neutrality on merits, notice for hearing, disposal of writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to sanction a refund of IGST and duty drawback amounts along with interest and provisional refund. The applications for refund were pending, and there was no response from the Respondents. The Respondents mentioned ongoing investigations. The petitioner's counsel cited Circulars and a judgment from the Telangana High Court to support their contention that the refund cannot be withheld. The court directed Respondent No. 3 to decide on the refund applications within four weeks, considering relevant Circulars and the Telangana High Court judgment. The Respondent was also instructed to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner before making a decision.

If further investigation is needed, a provisional refund order must be issued within the prescribed time. The order must be communicated to the petitioner within a week, with reasons recorded. If the decision is adverse, the petitioner can take appropriate action. The court clarified its neutrality on the merits of the case, keeping all contentions open. Respondent No. 3 must provide clear notice before any hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with the rule made absolute, and no costs were awarded. The parties were instructed to act based on an authenticated copy of the order.