Mak Global Exports vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, IGST Refund Cell(Port)

Held

The Court held that the respondent authorities had not yet passed a final order on the petitioner's refund application and representations. The Court directed the concerned authority to pass a final order on the petitioner's application for refund and the aforementioned representations. This order must be a reasoned and speaking order, passed in accordance with law, and must take into consideration the judgments of the Gujarat and Madras High Courts relied upon by the petitioner. The authority is required to pass this order within four weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order. Crucially, before passing any final order, the petitioner or its authorized representative must be given an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund claim itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of the authority's inaction.

Facts

The petitioner, Mak Global Exports, filed a writ petition before the High Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in considering its representations dated February 10, 2018, and June 18, 2018, concerning a GST refund. The petitioner had also filed a refund application on May 31, 2018. Despite these submissions, no refund had been granted. The petitioner sought a direction for the authorities to consider its refund application and representations. The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, IGST Refund Cell, and the Union of India, were represented.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to act upon the petitioner's refund application and subsequent representations, thereby causing inaction? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the GST refund sought, considering the relevant provisions of the GST law and judicial precedents? The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities have been inactive in processing its refund application and representations. To support its claim for refund entitlement, the petitioner relied on decisions from the Gujarat High Court in Amit Cotton Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (MANU/GJ/1303/2019) and the Madras High Court in Precot Meridian Limited vs. The Commissioner of Customs & Ors. (MANU/TN/9492/2019). The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents regarding their defense against the refund claim or their justification for the delay.