Bombay High Court
R K Copper And Alloy Llp vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 28 January, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. M. Modak
2. WP (L) 30843 of 2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 30843 OF 2021
R. K. Copper and Alloy LLP ]
Having Office at ]
Prasad Chambers, Opera House, ]
13th Floor, Office No. 1308, ]
Mumbai - 400004 ]
Through its authorized Representative ]
Mr. Arvind Khubilal Jain ] ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India ]
Represented by the Secretary, ]
Department of Revenue, ]
Ministry of Finance, ]
North Block, ]
New Delhi - 110 001. ]
2. Member GST, ]
Central board of Indirect ]
Taxes and Customs, ]
North Block, New Delhi ]
Delhi - 110 001. ]
3. Commissioner of CGST, ]
CGST Mumbai South ]
13th / 15th Floor, Air India ]
Building, Mumbai - 400 021. ]
4. Principal Chief Commissioner of GST ]
Mumbai Zone, 115 ]
Mahrishi Karve Road, ]
Churchgate ]
Mumbai - 400 020. ] ...Respondents
*****
SEEMA Digitally signed
by SEEMA
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date: 2022.01.29
YELKAR 11:22:19 +0530
Seema 1/5
2. WP (L) 30843 of 2021.doc
Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Rishabh Jain i/by M/s UBR Legal -
Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Neeta Masurkar a/w Ms. Nieyaati Masurkar and Mr.
Satyaprakash Sharma - Advocate for the Respondents
*****
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2022
(Through Video Conference)
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R. D. DHANUKA) :-
. Rule. Ms. Neeta Masurkar, the learned counsel waives service
of notice on behalf of the Respondents. By consent of parties,
petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondents to sanction refund of IGST amount of Rs. 5,80,58,350/-
and duty drawback amounting to Rs. 39,65,237/- immediately along
with interest @ 24 % p.a. and to sanction provisional refund @ 90%
of the disputed amount in terms of Section 54 (6) of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and
Services Rules, 2017 and for other reliefs.
3. It is not in dispute that the applications filed by the Petitioner
for seeking refund from IGST is pending which was made vide letters
Seema 2/5
2. WP (L) 30843 of 2021.doc
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.
4. Ms. Neeta Masurakar, the learned counsel for the Respondents,
on instructions, states that there are certain investigations going on.
5. Mr. Bharat Raichandani, the learned counsel for the Petitioner,
tenders copy of the Circular dated 23/01/2020, Press release dated
29/10/2017 and Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST dated 15/11/2017
in support of his contention that the Respondents cannot with hold
the payment of refund of IGST as well as duty drawback. He also
placed reliance on judgment of Telangana High Court in case of The
Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs and 5 Ors. in Writ
Petition No. 15804 of 2021, 2021-TIOL-2143-HC-Telangana-GST in
support of his submission.
6. In view of the fact that the applications for refund of IGST and
duty drawback are still pending, we direct 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.
Seema 3/5
2. WP (L) 30843 of 2021.doc
7. The Respondent No. 3 while processing the applications made
by the Petitioner shall take into consideration the Circular dated
23/01/2020, Press release dated 29/10/2017 and Circular No.
17/17/2017-GST dated 15/11/2017 and principles laid down by the
Telangana High Court in case of Bhagyanagar Copper Private
Limited V/s The Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs and 5
Ors. referred to aforesaid.
8. The Respondent No. 3 shall also grant personal hearing to the
Petitioner before passing the appropriate order.
9. 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.
10. Order that would be passed by the Respondent No. 3 shall be
communicated to the Petitioner within one week from the date of
passing of order. Respondent No. 3 shall record reasons in the order
that would be passed. If the applications made by the Petitioner for
refund of IGST as well as duty drawback is allowed fully or partly,
Seema 4/5
2. WP (L) 30843 of 2021.doc
the refund shall be made within one week from the date of passing
of such order.
11. If order that would be passed by the Respondent No. 3 goes
adverse against the Petitioner, the Petitioner would be at liberty to
file appropriate proceedings.
12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views on
the merits of the matter. All contentions of both the parties are kept
open.
13. Respondent No. 3 shall give 48 hours clear notice to the
Petitioner before the date of hearing proposed by the Respondent
No. 3.
14. Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. Rule is made absolute. Accordingly, no order as to costs.
16. Parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this
order.
[S. M. MODAK, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
Seema 5/5
