Petitioner permitted to withdraw challenge against GST circular after assurance from Assistant Solicitor General.

The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition challenging the impugned circular under the GST Act and seeking removal from the list of Risky Exporter. The withdrawal was permitted based on the assurance provided by the Assistant Solicitor General of India to address the petitioner's representations within two weeks. The specific outcomes regarding the release of refund of IGST and benefits under the Duty Drawback Scheme and RODTEP Scheme were not detailed in the judgment as the focus shifted to resolving the matter through withdrawal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned circular under GST Act
2. Removal of petitioner from list of Risky Exporter
3. Release of refund of IGST to petitioner
4. Release of benefits under Duty Drawback Scheme and RODTEP Scheme

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an impugned circular under the GST Act as ultra vires and beyond the jurisdiction of the Executive, seeking to quash it. The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus to remove their name from the list of Risky Exporter. The court noted that although the petitioner had approached the relevant authority through emails, no action had been taken so far. The verification report favored the petitioner, indicating a discrepancy in the declaration of the petitioner as a Risky Exporter.

2. The Assistant Solicitor General of India assured that the representations made by the petitioner would be decided within two weeks in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the petitioner expressed the intention to withdraw the petition based on the statement made by the Assistant Solicitor General of India. The court allowed the withdrawal of the petition at that stage, indicating a resolution to the matter based on the assurance provided.

3. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus for the release of the refund of IGST along with applicable interest as per the provisions of the GST Act or on a provisional basis. Additionally, the petitioner requested the release of benefits claimed under the Duty Drawback Scheme and RODTEP Scheme. However, the specific details and outcomes related to these requests were not explicitly mentioned in the judgment, as the focus shifted towards the withdrawal of the petition based on the assurance given by the Assistant Solicitor General of India.

4. The judgment concluded by ordering the withdrawal of the petition and disposing of all pending applications. The decision to allow the withdrawal indicated a resolution to the issues raised by the petitioner, with the assurance of a timely decision on the representations made to the relevant authority.

---