Court orders refund in mandamus petition, rejects online filing defense, directs timely payment.

The court granted relief to the petitioner in a mandamus petition seeking refund of due amount under an order dated 06.01.2020, related to July 2019, with interest. Despite the order, the amount and interest were not paid, leading to ongoing interest liability due to delayed refund process. The court held that manual filing of the application was valid under Rule 97A, rejecting the defense of online filing requirement. Respondents were directed to refund the amount with interest within one month, emphasizing timely resolution of such disputes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Mandamus sought for refund of due amount.
2. Delay in refund process and interest liability.
3. Dispute regarding online vs. manual filing of application.
4. Legal consequences of delayed refund order.
5. Respondents' defense and liability for interest.
6. Application of Rule 97A and Circular No.125/44/2019-GST.
7. Relief granted by the court.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a mandamus for the refund of Rs. 1,28,50,535/- due under an order dated 06.01.2020. The refund related to July 2019, and interest was also sought due to non-payment. The petitioner had filed an application for refund manually under Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The refund order was passed beyond the stipulated sixty days, leading to interest liability under Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Despite the order for refund and interest, neither the amount nor the interest was paid to the petitioner. The court noted that the respondents failed to comply with the refund process within the prescribed time frame, resulting in ongoing interest liability. The court emphasized the importance of timely refund and interest payment in such cases.

3. The respondents raised a defense regarding the mode of application filing, arguing that the application should have been processed online. However, the court held that Rule 97A allowed for manual filing of applications, overriding the subsequent Circular No.125/44/2019-GST, which prescribed online filing. The court emphasized that once an application is processed and an order passed, the respondents cannot escape their obligations.

4. The court rejected the respondents' argument that they acted in the best interest of revenue, emphasizing that the petitioner suffered due to the delayed refund process. The court directed respondent no.6 to refund the entire amount with interest, giving the respondents the choice to make payment online or through a bank draft within one month.

5. The court allowed the writ petition, providing relief to the petitioner and highlighting the need for timely resolution of similar disputes between the respondents. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---