AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Order or direction directing the Respondents, their servants, agents or representatives to adjudicate the refund Application of IGST paid on export of the goods along with duty drawback without any further delay and remove the tagging of "Red flag" against the Petitioner' C. That pending Notice, admission and disposing of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents, their sub-ordinates, agents or their representatives; i. to forthwith sanction the refund claim of the Petitioner with such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court; or ii. to direct the Respondents, their subordinates, agents or their representatives to decide the pending refund applications forthwith without any further delay; D. for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (c) above; E. for costs of the petition/application and orders thereon and; F. for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. [2] Heard the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner and jurisdictional Commissioner and such intimation shall be transmitted to the common portal. But the respondent failed to intimate the petitioner as well as jurisdictional Commissioner and also failed to transmit such communication on the common portal. 5.7 The petitioner, on 22.09.2021 received an email communication from Assistant Commissioner (Anti- Evasion), Gandhinagar, inter alia, clarifying that the office has not received information with regard to investigation from the petitioner and no investigation is pending against the petitioner. In the said email communication, the Assistant Commissioner vide referring Circular No.131/1/2002 dated 23.01.2023, advised the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Gandhinagar for the resolution of the issue. 5.8 Pursuant to the email communication dated 22.09.2021, petitioner wrote a communication dated 23.09.2021 to the Deputy Commissioner, Gandhinagar to sanction the refund and other documents. The refund of the petitioner was withheld for almost six months and after six months, petitioner was put in the category of 'Risky Exporter' without providing any reason. The petitioner vide communication dated 30.09.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the petitioner. [8] During the pendecny of this petition, some development took place. To bring the development that has occurred during the pendency of this petition, an additional Affidavit dated 25.07.2022 is also filed by the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner has stated that except the refund involved in the Shipping Bill No.8723678 dated 17.02.2021, petitioner has received refund of IGST involved in the goods exported. Thus, as per the say of the petitioner, refund of Shipping Bill No.8723678 dated 17.02.2021, is yet to be received by the petitioner. In the said Additional Affidavit, the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner is entitled to get interest in view of the provisions of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, since the refund was not sanctioned within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application. [9] As against this, the learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that so far as refund involved in the Shipping Bill No.8723678 dated 17.02.2021, the same is under process and the petitioner will receive the same very soon. [10] In view of the above development pending this petition, now the issue which is left for con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le in respect of such refund from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of receipt of application till the date of refund of such tax. [13] The learned advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxi Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T 3 (S.C). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that wordings of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 56 of Central Goods and Services tax Act, 2017 are same. In the aforesaid decision in para 9, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under : - "9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the appli....