Vodafone Idea Limited vs Union Of India And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 10935 Bom

         Digitally signed
         by MEERA                                              1/4                             908-wpl-32041-22.doc
MEERA    MAHESH
         JADHAV
MAHESH   Date:
JADHAV   2022.10.20
         17:16:34
         +0530                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                       WRIT PETITION (L) NO.32041 OF 2022

                Vodafone Idea Limited                                   ....Petitioner
                     V/s.
                Union of India & Ors.                                   ...Respondents


                                                     ----

Mr. D. B. Shroff, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prasad Paranjape and Mr. Arun Jain i/b Mr. Kartik Vig for Petitioner.

Mr. Jitendra B Mishra a/w Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma for Respondents. Ms Sumity Garg, Dy. Commissioner, CGST & CEX, Mumbai Central Division VIII, present.

----

CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & A.S. DOCTOR, JJ DATED : 18th OCTOBER 2022

P.C. :

1 Prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition read as under:

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the Refund Rejection Order No.ZY2707220428298 dated 29th July 2022 (Exhibit B) in Form-GST-RFD-06 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the refund claim of Rs.88,46,01,539/- filed by the petitioner for the period October 2020 to December 2020.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the respondents by themselves, their subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith sanction refund of (I) Rs.102,74,14,843/- for the period April 2019 to September 2019; and (ii) refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- for the period October 2020 and December 2020, alongwith interest."

2 As regards the refund of Rs.1,02,74,14,843/- claimed in prayer clause

Meera Jadhav 2/4 908-wpl-32041-22.doc

(b), Mr. Shroff states that an additional affidavit of one Suyog Nawal

affirmed on 17th October 2022 is being filed, in which it is stated that

respondent no.3 has sanctioned refund of Rs.1,02,74,14,843/- for the

period April 2019 to September 2019. Though, technically this claim of

petitioner has been worked out, the problem, as rightly submitted by Mr.

Shroff is respondent no.3 has not granted interest on this refund amount.

3 Mr. Mishra, on instructions from Ms Sumity Garg, Dy. Commissioner,

CGST & CEX, Mumbai Central Division VIII, who is present in court, states

that interest could not be granted to petitioner because the department had

not received the interest calculations or claim from petitioner. We find this

stand of respondents rather surprising because whatever application

petitioner may file, respondents would not simply grant the amount without

ascertaining that petitioner's claim is correct. Therefore, in our view, this is

nothing but a baseless excuse.

4 Mr. Mishra, on instructions from Ms Garg further states that within

one week of receiving the application from petitioner, the interest amount

will be paid. If for any reason petitioner is unable to file an online

application due to any technical glitches, petitioner is at liberty to file a

physical application with said Ms Garg and the application will be promptly

processed. Mr. Shroff states that the application with calculations will be

filed latest by 21st October 2022. Mr. Mishra's statement that within one

week of receiving the application, the same will be processed and amount

will be paid, is accepted as undertaking to this court.

Meera Jadhav
                                         3/4                       908-wpl-32041-22.doc




5         As regards prayer clause (a) and the second part of prayer clause (b),

i.e., refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- for the period October 2020 to December

2020, respondent no.3 had rejected petitioner's refund application by the

impugned order dated 29th July 2022. Mr. Mishra states that department

has reviewed that order and has also filed an appeal under sub-Section (2)

of Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). In

effect, Mr. Mishra states that even department has not accepted the

impugned order and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to refund of

Rs.88,46,01,539/- together with interest, if any. Mr. Mishra states that this

amount of Rs.88,46,01,539/- together with interest will be paid to

petitioner within one week of an application being made by petitioner. In

our view, no such application is required because petitioner had already

filed the application on which the impugned order was passed and

department itself has accepted that the impugned order was wrong.

Therefore, respondents shall process petitioner's original application for

refund together with interest and pay the amount on or before 31 st October

2022. At the same time, petitioner is at liberty to file such an application,

should they wish to.

6 By consent, the impugned order dated 29 th July 2022 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

7         Petition disposed.

8         Mr. Mishra states that respondents are considering to challenge the

order and judgment dated 4 th July 2022 passed by this court in Writ Petition

Meera Jadhav 4/4 908-wpl-32041-22.doc

No.3221 of 2021 with Writ Petition (L) No.12860 of 2022. Mr. Mishra

states that liberty be given to respondents to file an SLP, if so advised,

notwithstanding the order passed today or the refund granted to petitioner.

That liberty is always available to the department.

(A. S. DOCTOR, J.)                                (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Meera Jadhav