TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Constitution of India, wherein, this Court, initially on 24.11.2022 issued the notice. After service of notice pursuant to the said order, learned advocates filed appearance on behalf of respondent nos.3,4,5,6,8 and 9. Though served, no appearance is filed for respondent nos.1,2 and 7. 2. Thereafter, on 18.1.2023, this Court passed the following order: "1. Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction of the respondent to release the refund of IGST amounting to Rs.14,80,27,927.67/-, which is allegedly withheld illegally violating the provisions of section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 91(1) of the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus writ, order or direction directing the respondents to remove the tag of risky exporters. (d) To issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) or any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; (e) To award Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the Respondents;" 5. We notice that the affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6 indicating that the inquiry was initiated after the exporter had been suspended on 25.10.2021 as per the RMCC instruction. On his having been identified as "risky exporter" for grant of IGST r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at because of the inaction on behalf of the respondents for refund, the working capital of the business is blocked and therefore the business is on the verge of shutting down its operations. He also submitted that the firm is suffering is financial loss of more than Rs.11 lacs per month as the petitioner has to pay interest for the working capital borrowings from the bank due to blockage of working capital on account of delay in receiving the IGST refunds. 4.1 Referring to the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (`CGST' for short), he submitted that the refund of ISGT amounting to Rs.14,80,27,927.67 ps. which is withheld is in violation of provisions of Section 54(6) of the CGST Act and GGST Act read with Rule 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Customs Act, 1961. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the above Sections 54(10) or 54(11) of the CGST Act, the refund is withheld by the respondents, which action is arbitrary in nature. 4.3 Learned advocate has further referred to the Circular No.131/1/2020-GST dated 23.1.2020 issued by the respondent no.2 which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the exporters as Risky exporters and as a part of that, the petitioner already submitted few details and documents on 17.1.2022 and the report should have been furnished to the Chief Commissioner of Central Tax within 30 days who will forward the same to RMCC within five days i.e. the report should have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he DGARM issued NOC and the office of respondent nos.5 and 6 can revoke the suspension only after the receipt of NOC from DGARM, New Delhi-respondent no.7 herein and after the suspension is revoked, the Customs Automated Systems will automatically disburse all the pending IGST refund of the exporter. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Gupta for respondent nos.8 and 9 referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent nos.8 and 9 and submitted that the name of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent no.7 for verification of credentials. After following the procedure of verification in terms of the relevant circular, initially negative verification report was sent to respondent no.7 on 15.2.2022. Thereafter, after detailed verification along wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said goods purchased. Further, none of the provisions of the CGST Act and the IGST Act mandate the petitioner to verify the genuineness of the suppliers of the supplier, even though safeguards is provided to recover the taxes, if not paid or wrongly availed by the petitioner's supplier or supplier's supplier. In this case, the supplier's supplier is placed in the list of L2 risky supplier and even then, with a hope to get the IGST refund, the petitioner has paid the ITC, but still the refund is not processed and given to the petitioner. 9. Further, the respondents ought to have granted the provisiosnl refund to the extent of 90% as provided under Section 54(6) of the CGST Act read with Rule 91 of the CGST Rules, which the respondents f....