Shabnam Petrofils PVT. LTD. vs. The Controller General Of Accounts

Held

The Court noted that the learned advocates for both the petitioner and the respondent had jointly stated that the IGST amount in question had been refunded to the petitioner subsequent to the issuance of notice in the writ petition. Consequently, the Court found that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition no longer survived. The Court's decision was based on the concession made by both parties regarding the refund having been effected. The ratio decidendi is that when the relief sought in a writ petition is granted before the final adjudication, the petition becomes infructuous. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as having become infructuous and discharge the notice with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Shabnam Petrofils Pvt. Ltd., filed a Special Civil Application seeking a direction for the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) payable to it. The respondent was The Controller General of Accounts. Subsequent to the issuance of notice in the writ petition, both the petitioner and the respondent's counsel informed the Court that the amount in question had already been refunded to the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance raised in the petition no longer subsisted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of IGST payable to it? The petitioner argued that it was entitled to a refund of IGST. The respondent, through its counsel, stated that the refund had already been processed and paid to the petitioner. No specific provisions of law or precedents were cited by either party in the brief oral order.