Jwala Energy Resources Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner - SGST

Held

The Court did not decide the constitutionality or legality of the impugned order. Instead, based on the submissions of both parties, the Court closed the writ petition. The 1st respondent (Assistant Commissioner - SGST) agreed to process the petitioner's refund claim expeditiously if the petitioner responded to Form-GST-RFD-03. The Court directed the petitioner to respond to Form-GST-RFD-03 within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon receiving the petitioner's response, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the same, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass an appropriate order within two weeks thereafter, communicating the decision to the petitioner. No costs were awarded. The issue of the refund amount and interest was not adjudicated upon but was to be processed as per the agreed procedure.

Facts

The petitioner, Jwala Energy Resources Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner - SGST (1st respondent) was unconstitutional and illegal. The petitioner also sought a direction to refund Rs. 68,36,372/- deposited as IGST on import ocean freight, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of payment under protest, which was 12.06.2019. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner - SGST, Commissioner - CGST, and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the 1st respondent is unconstitutional, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice, and arbitrary? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and constitutional validity). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a declaration that the impugned order was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and consequently sought the refund of the deposited IGST amount with interest. Revenue's contention: The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that if the petitioner responded to the contents stipulated in Form-GST-RFD-03 under Rule 90(3) of CGST Rules, the Department was ready to process the refund claim and pass an order in accordance with the law expeditiously. The petitioner's counsel agreed to respond to the form.