M/S.Gemni Wafer Technology vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.R.R. Viswanath, made a submission to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, the Court, in accordance with the petitioner's prayer, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No specific findings were made by the Court on the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the impugned order, the alleged violations of natural justice, statutory provisions, or constitutional articles. The Court did not delve into the validity of the order or the entitlement to the refund. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Gemni Wafer Technology, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) on June 2, 2020, in Form-GST-RFD-06. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to set aside this order, alleging it violated principles of natural justice and provisions of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as constitutional articles. The petitioner also sought a direction to refund an amount of Rs. 18,36,789 along with interest. Additionally, an interlocutory application was filed seeking sanction of a provisional refund of 90% of the total claim pending the disposal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated June 2, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) in Form-GST-RFD-06 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 16 of the Integrated Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 54 of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the impugned order is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, making it arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 18,36,789 along with interest? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, including Sections 16 of the IGST Act and 54 of the CGST Act. They contended that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, infringing upon their constitutional rights. They sought a mandamus to set aside the order and direct the refund of the disputed amount with interest. Respondents' Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents.