M/S. Trishul Exotic PVT LTD Through Its Director Ram Bapu Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the application dated September 28, 2020, for the release of IGST refund, though received by the respondent authority on October 1, 2020, had not been decided. However, the petitioner did not press the present petition, intending to make a fresh representation incorporating all contentions. In view of this submission, the petition was dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation, which the concerned respondent authority (respondent No. 2) was directed to consider expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, and in accordance with law. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Trishul Exotic Pvt Ltd, through its Director Ram Bapu Gupta, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner had made an application dated September 28, 2020, to the respondent authority for the release of an IGST refund. This application was received by the respondent on October 1, 2020. However, the petitioner stated that the application had not yet been decided. The petitioner subsequently submitted that they did not wish to press the present petition, intending instead to make a fresh representation to the respondent authority, incorporating all the contentions raised in the current petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority has failed to decide the petitioner's application for IGST refund within a reasonable time, thereby violating the petitioner's right to timely refund under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime? The petitioner argued that their application dated September 28, 2020, received by the respondent on October 1, 2020, remained undecided, causing prejudice. The respondent's arguments were not recorded as the petitioner withdrew the petition. The court was not asked to decide on the merits of the refund claim itself, but rather on the procedural delay in its decision.