TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned Order-In-Appeal No. GST/RFD/AP. No. 635/2024-25 dated 31.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.1I enclosed at Annexure-A; b) issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned Refund Rejection Order No. ACCT/LGSTO-075/RFD/12/2024-25 dated 19.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 enclosed at Annexure-B; c) issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to refund and sanctioned the same vide order dated 11.06.2024 and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent-Joint Commissioner for prior approval. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner holding all issues in favour of the petitioner and forwarding the same to the Joint Commissioner only for approval, the 2nd respondent once again issued a communication dated 17.08.2024 intimating the very same discrepancies that he had already pointed out in his communication dated 13.05.2024 which were answered in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner who sanctioned the refund in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 11.06.2024. It is also contended that though the 3rd respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avour of the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in his first order dated 15.05.2024, the 3rd respondent had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled the sanction of refund and had forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for prior approval. So also pursuant to the 2nd respondent addressing a communication dated 13.05.2024, the 3rd respondent took into account the reply submitted by petitioner and once again came to the conclusion vide order dated 11.06.2024 that the petitioner was entitled to sanction of refund. Under these circumstances, merely because the 2nd respondent had issued a communication dated 17.08.2024 raising the very same discrepancies which he had raised in his earlier lett....