Exporter Wins IGST Refund Battle After Deputy Commissioner's Unreasonable Delay Despite Settled Legal Precedent

The HC granted mandamus for immediate IGST refund of Rs. 5,81,199 on exported goods after the Deputy Commissioner took an unreasonable stand by citing a circular despite settled legal precedent. The Court viewed this as contemptuous behavior, noting similar cases had resulted in refunds with interest. The writ application was disposed of after the petitioner's counsel confirmed that the refund had been sanctioned and paid with 9% interest, resolving both the refund issue and the contempt concern.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of IGST on exported goods
2. Interest on delayed refund
3. Contempt of court by Deputy Commissioner

Analysis:
1. Refund of IGST on exported goods:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the immediate sanction of a refund of IGST amounting to Rs. 5,81,199 paid on exported goods. The Court referred to previous judgments like Amit Cotton Industries case and highlighted the settled legal position. Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner (IGST) took an unreasonable stand, citing a circular. The Court viewed this as contemptuous behavior, noting that similar cases had resulted in refunds with interest. A notice was issued for final disposal, and eventually, the petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the refund had been sanctioned and paid with 9% interest, leading to the disposal of the writ application.

2. Interest on delayed refund:
The petitioner also requested interest at 18% on the delayed refund amount. The Court acknowledged the arbitrary withholding of the refund by the authorities and the legal precedent of granting interest on such delayed payments. The petitioner's counsel later confirmed the payment of the refund with 9% interest, indicating a resolution to this aspect of the case.

3. Contempt of court by Deputy Commissioner:
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the Deputy Commissioner's actions, considering them contemptuous due to disregarding established legal judgments. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with judicial decisions and noted that similar instances had led to refunds being granted with interest. A notice was issued for final disposal, highlighting the seriousness of the Deputy Commissioner's conduct in defiance of court rulings. The case was disposed of after the petitioner's counsel informed the Court of the refund payment with interest, indicating a resolution to the contemptuous behavior exhibited by the Deputy Commissioner.

---