M/S Massilly INDIA Packaging PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Massilly India Packaging Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking a direction to the respondents, the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise and Central Tax (GST) and the Union of India, to consider their representation dated April 18, 2022. This representation prayed for the refund of CENVAT credit/input credit amounting to Rs. 27,87,954.41 to their electronic ledger account or in cash. The petitioner's grievance was that their representation had not been considered by the respondents, and no order had been passed on it. The respondents' counsel submitted that they would consider and pass a necessary order on the representation if reasonable time was granted.

Held

The Court directed the respondents to address the grievances of the petitioner and consider its representation dated April 18, 2022, passing an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself or the validity of the input credit. The primary focus was on the non-consideration of the petitioner's representation. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's grievance of inaction by the authorities and the respondents' submission indicating a willingness to consider the matter. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory authority fails to consider a representation within a reasonable time, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the authority to consider and pass an order. The operative direction was to pass an appropriate order within four weeks from the receipt of the court's order. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated April 18, 2022, for the refund of CENVAT credit/input credit of Rs. 27,87,954.41. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their representation seeking a refund of input credit had not been considered by the respondents, necessitating judicial intervention. They sought a direction for the consideration of their refund claim and, alternatively, payment of interest on the delayed refund. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that they would consider the petitioner's representation and pass a necessary order if granted reasonable time. No specific legal arguments or reliance on provisions were recorded for the respondents, beyond their willingness to process the representation.