Bfast Exports And Trading Co. vs. The Union Of INDIA And Anr
Held
The Court held that the respondent authorities had not yet considered the petitioner's representation dated May 24, 2021. The Court directed the concerned respondent to consider and dispose of this representation in accordance with the law. This consideration must result in a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of the order's communication. If, upon consideration, the respondent finds the petitioner entitled to the refund, immediate steps must be taken to process and disburse the refund. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim for duty drawback or IGST refund, but rather on the procedural aspect of the authorities' inaction.
Facts
The petitioner, BFAST EXPORTS AND TRADING CO., filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities. The petitioner had made several representations, including one on May 24, 2021, to the Principal Chief Commissioner CGST under CBIC, seeking consideration of their request for pending duty drawback and refund of IGST on exports. The impugned action is the alleged failure of the authorities to address these representations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations regarding pending duty drawback and refund of IGST on exports, thereby violating the petitioner's right to have their grievances addressed in accordance with law? The petitioner argued that despite making multiple representations, including a recent one on May 24, 2021, the respondent authorities have remained inactive, causing prejudice to their business interests. They sought a direction from the Court to compel the authorities to consider and decide their pending claims. The respondents' arguments were not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their presence indicates they were defending their actions or inactions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD 9 BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 29th November, 2021. (Via Video Conference) Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv. … for the petitioner Mr. Sujit Mitra, Adv. …for respondent no. 1 Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Mr. Sukalpa Seal, Advs. …for respondent no. 2 The Court: Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the records. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned inaction on the part of the respondent authorities concerned in considering the request of the petitioner to allow pending duty drawback and refund of IGST on export in question in spite of series of representations made from time to time and lastly on May 24, 2021 being annexure P-6 at page 262 of the writ petition made before the Principal Chief Commissioner CGST under CBIC.
2 This writ petition being WPO 1190 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the respondent concerned to consid
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.