TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti waives service of notice of rule for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, as the issue involved is very short. 3. The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "a. A writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions in the nature of mandamus to strike down and declare Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 to the extent it denies the refund of unutilized ITC on account of supplies made to SEZ units without payment of tax as arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Refund Application dated 19.10.2022 under the category "Any Other (Specify)", since the Refund Application under the category "Supply to SEZ Unit without payment of Taxes" can only be claimed only once, as per the Board Circular No. 125/44/2019 - GST dated 18.11.2019. 4.4 A Show Cause Notice was issued on 01.11.2022, notifying the Petitioner to explain why their refund application should not be rejected for violating paragraph No. 8 of Circular No. 125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019. 4.5 In response, the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 07.11.2022, primarily arguing that due to an inadvertent error, 5 bills for supplies to the SEZ Unit were missed while calculating the ITC of IGST claimed in the previous Refund Application. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019, which permits the petitioner to claim refund, but once. 7. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS :- 7.1 On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and 5 we find that the respondents have not contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the quantum of refund claimed in the second refund application. The respondents have specifically contended as under:- "6. In view of the above factual position, this officer was not in a position to sanction again the refund claim of Rs. 12,62,088/- filed by the petitioner for the tax period May-2022 in the category of "Any other (Specify)". As there is no specific provision/formula framed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, New Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantive conditions are satisfied without scrutiny by the respondent in accordance with law. Thus, the petition deserves to be allowed." 8.1 In Pee Gee Fabrics Private Limited Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Guj.3044, this Court has held as under:- "32. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent authorities cannot dispute claim of the petitioner's eligibility the of refund of Rs. 22,78,798/- for the month of August 2018 calculated as per Notification No. 20/2018 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017. It is also not in dispute that the said claim of the petitioners was restricted to Rs. 14,71,946/- by GST Portal in view of reversal of wrongly claimed credit of Rs. 10,12,188/-on capital goods by petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus the respondent authorities have by adopting such a pedantic approach could not have rejected the legitimate claim of the petitioner company for balance amount of refund claim." 9. In view of the above position, this Court is of the view that once the respondents admit the entitlement of the petitioner to the quantum of refund, then this Court has ample powers and the jurisdiction to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner, the said refund. In the opinion of this Court, the failure so to do would tantamount to a stamp of approval by this Court to the unjust enrichment on the part of the Department to the excess tax collected by it from the petitioner, which it did not have authority to collect under Article 265 of the Constitu....