M/S. Seil Energy INDIA Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that in view of the Division Bench's judgment dated 26.08.2022 in W.P.No.11194 of 2021 and batch, the refund applications filed by the petitioner in 2019 had to be taken up again. The Division Bench had remanded the matters back to the concerned authorities. Therefore, there was no necessity for the petitioner to file a fresh application for refund. The Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondents to pass orders on the original refund applications filed in 2019, in accordance with law and subject to compliance with the directions of the Division Bench. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

M/s. Seil Energy India Limited, engaged in electricity generation and sale, sought refunds of GST paid on electricity exported to Bangladesh Power Development Board. Their initial refund applications were rejected by the primary authority and appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner then filed writ petitions, which were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on August 26, 2022. The Division Bench remanded the refund applications to the concerned authorities for reconsideration. Pursuant to this, the petitioner made a representation on November 3, 2022, to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax. This representation was rejected on January 30, 2023, and May 4, 2023, with the authority demanding a fresh refund application as the original application was considered closed. The petitioner filed the present writ petitions challenging these rejections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent-authority can insist on a fresh application for GST refund when the Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 26.08.2022 in W.P.No.11194 of 2021 and batch, had remanded the original refund applications for reconsideration? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Division Bench's order was for the consideration of already filed applications and that the respondent cannot demand a fresh application. They further contended that the demand for a fresh application was a tactic to avoid paying interest on the refund for the intervening period. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the earlier application had been closed and it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a fresh application for refund.