Tvl. Ramana Textiles Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of State Of GST And Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ramana Textiles Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to refund eligible excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period September to December 2017, based on their application dated 28.11.2018. The petitioner initially applied to the third respondent, who directed them to approach the fourth respondent. However, due to jurisdictional changes, the fourth respondent referred the petitioner back to the third respondent. The petitioner then submitted a manual application on 21.10.2021 to the third respondent, who sought advice from the second respondent. No action was taken, leading to the present writ petition. The respondents, through the Special Government Pleader, expressed willingness to consider the petitioner's request if a manual application with supporting documents was submitted to the fourth respondent.

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by both parties. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents stated that they were willing to consider the petitioner's request for refund, subject to the petitioner submitting a manual application along with supporting documents to the fourth respondent. Based on this statement, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a manual application to the fourth respondent within two weeks from the date of the order, along with the necessary supporting documents. The Court further directed the fourth respondent to consider this application on its merits and in accordance with the law, passing appropriate orders within eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but focused on facilitating the procedural steps for its consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the eligible excess ITC amount for September to December 2017, considering the petitioner's application dated 28.11.2018 and the subsequent procedural delays. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite making multiple applications and following the directions of the revenue authorities, their refund claim for excess ITC for the period September to December 2017 remained unaddressed. They sought a direction for the refund in accordance with law, highlighting the prolonged delay in processing their application. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, stated their willingness to consider the petitioner's request, provided the petitioner submitted a fresh manual application along with all supporting documents to the fourth respondent. They did not contest the eligibility of the refund but focused on the procedural requirement.