TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... For convenience, we note the substantive prayers made in both the petitions which read thus:- "Prayers in Writ petition No. 2188 of 2022 a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the impugned Order No. 138/2021-CX (WZ)/ASRA/Mumbai dated 16.3.2021 (Ex passed by Respondent No. 2; b1) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction under Article ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same thereof to quash and set aside the same; b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India holding or ordering that the Petitioner is entitled to a re-credit of Rs. 58,08,147/- in its CENVAT Credit account and consequently directing the Respondent themselves, the officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith sanction, grant and pay to the Petitioner the refund of Rs.58,08,147/- with appropriate interest thereon in cash under Section 142(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; c) alternatively, that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the petitioners are not contending that the rebate claims of the petitioners are filed within limitation, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sansera Engineering Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru 2022 (382) E.L.T. 721 (SC). Thus, any contention assailing an issue on limitation is no longer available to the petitioners. 6. It is however, the petitioners' case that upon rejection of its rebate claims, it is entitled to a re-credit of the duty paid by it. It is contended that the re-credit needs to be granted to the petitioners in cash as per the provisions of Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 being the miscellaneous transitional provisions. 7. Mr. Sridharan in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only exception was in relation to exported goods. It is submitted that in the case of exports, an assessee could choose to pay excise duty on its exported goods by utilizing CENVAT Credit and claim a refund of the same in cash, being the incentive or benefit extended to exports. 9. On such backdrop, it is the petitioners' case that it is not in dispute that the petitioners had paid excise duty by debiting their CENVAT account and since no duty was payable on exports, the Department was required to return back to the petitioners the excess duty paid, in the same form in which it was paid. It is submitted that such benefit would be available even if the petitioners' refund claim was time barred. This relief ought not be denied to the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in such situation the credit is liable to be paid in cash to the assessee. For such reason, the re-credit due to the petitioners subject matter of the impugned rejection of the petitioners' rebate application under Rule 18 is in fact liable to be paid to the petitioners in cash under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 being filed under the present GST regime. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the said submissions, it is submitted that the petitioners may be granted the alternative relief of being allowed to directly avail re-credit in their monthly GSTR-3B returns. 11. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, the petitions are opposed to submit that by the impugned order, the relief has been appropriately denied to t....