M/S Haryana Oil And General Mills vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties. The petitioner sought a mandamus for the issuance of unutilized Input Tax Credit amounting to ₹2,79,960/- for the year 2017-18, citing Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and a prior order from a coordinate bench. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, Haryana, agreed to consider the matter in light of the precedent case and the specific facts of the present petition. They assured the Court that a speaking order would be passed at the earliest, within a period of two weeks. Based on this assurance, the Court disposed of the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Haryana Oil & General Mills, sought a writ of mandamus from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner requested the court to direct respondent No. 2 (a GST authority) to issue unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹2,79,960/-. This ITC was accumulated due to an inverted tax structure for the year 2017-18, as per Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner stated that the refund had not been processed despite filing an application, which was duly acknowledged by respondent No. 2 on March 20, 2020. The petitioner relied on a similar order passed by a coordinate bench in another case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to issue the unutilized Input Tax Credit amounting to ₹2,79,960/- accumulated on account of an inverted tax structure for the year 2017-18, under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC as per Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, for the year 2017-18. They submitted that their refund application was duly acknowledged by the respondent authority, but the refund has not been issued. They relied on a coordinate bench's order in a similar case (M/s Viond Oil and General Mills v. Union of India and others, decided on 23.11.2020). Revenue's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, agreed to consider the issue in light of the order passed in the cited Vinod Oil's case and the facts of the present case. They undertook to pass a speaking order at the earliest, within two weeks.