Indorama INDIA PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the issues raised. Instead, in view of the statement made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition at that stage. The Assistant Solicitor General had assured that the representations made by the petitioner to Respondent No. 3 would be decided in accordance with law within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. Consequently, the Court ordered accordingly and disposed of all pending applications. No specific findings were made on the constitutionality of the circular, the removal from the 'Risky Exporter' list, or the release of refunds and benefits. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the petition based on the respondent's undertaking.

Facts

The petitioner, Indorama India Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs. These included quashing an impugned circular, removal from the list of 'Risky Exporter', release of IGST refund with interest, and release of benefits under the Duty Drawback Scheme and RODTEP Scheme. The petitioner contended that despite their persistent efforts through emails to Respondent No. 3, no action had been taken. They also stated that a verification report from the competent authority was in their favour, yet they were declared a 'Risky Exporter'. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General of India and Senior Additional Advocate General, appeared and waived service of notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned circular is ultra vires the GST Act and therefore unconstitutional, exceeding the jurisdiction of the Executive? 2. Whether Respondent No. 3 should be directed to immediately remove the petitioner from the list of 'Risky Exporter', especially when a verification report from the competent authority is in the petitioner's favour? 3. Whether Respondent No. 4 should be directed to release the refund of IGST to the petitioner along with applicable interest, or on a provisional basis under Section 54(6) of the CGST Act read with Rule 91 of the CGST Rules? 4. Whether Respondent No. 4 should take appropriate actions and release the benefits claimed under the Duty Drawback Scheme and RODTEP Scheme? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that no action had been taken by Respondent No. 3 despite their repeated communications and that a favorable verification report existed. They sought the aforementioned reliefs. Revenue's Contention: The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India stated that the representations made by the petitioner to Respondent No. 3 would be decided in accordance with law within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order.