Court emphasizes procedural compliance for tax credit refund petitions, dismissal without formal demand.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus for a refund of input tax credit as the petitioner failed to first make a demand before the appropriate authorities, a necessary step before approaching the court. The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and making formal demands before seeking relief through a writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to make the required demand before the authorities, with assurance of consideration and appropriate orders in accordance with the law, and no costs were imposed.

---

---

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.

---