1) Heard Sri. Bharat Raichandani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri. B.V.S. Chalapathi Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

2) The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari for the following reliefs:

a) Quash the impugned Order No. VJAGSTREJ/ 185/2019-20 & VJAGST-REJ/186/2019-20 dated 27.09.2019;

b) Quash the impugned letter bearing C. No. V/18/13/2020-Refunds dated 29.06.2020, and;

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to sanction entire refund claim with interest to the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and to pass such other reliefs”.

3) The facts, in issue, are as under:

i. The Petitioner herein is engaged in manufacturing and export of medicaments/pharmaceuticals products, falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

ii. With the introduction of Goods and Services Tax, 2017, [‘GST’], the Petitioner migrated to the GST regime and duly registered under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘CGST’].

iii. In the instant case, the Petitioner supplied goods to SEZ Unit on payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017 [‘IGST Act’], in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(5) of the IGST Act. The supply of goods to SEZ Unit is considered as “zero-rated supply” in terms of provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of IGST Act. The fact that the Petitioner made zero-rated supplies and paid IGST on supplies is not in dispute. That being the position, under section 54 of the CGST Act, inter alia, the Petitioner is entitled for IGST paid on zero-rated supplies.

iv. It is the case of the Petitioner that, after the roll-out of GST, on account of non-availability of electronic refund module on the common portal, a temporary mechanism is devised, to initiate the process of refund effectively. Accordingly, the Petitioner was required to file the refund application in the Form GST RFD-01A on common portal; take a print out and submit the same physically to the jurisdictional Tax Office along with the documents, which the Petitioner has done and acknowledgments to that affect were also given to the Petitioner.

v. In the month of February, 2020, the Petitioner attempted to submit physical documents in support of the above refund claims with the respective jurisdictional Department. However, the Department did not accept the documents. The Department informed the Petitioner that, in the light of Circular, dated 18.11.2019, issued by CBIC, the Petitioner is required to file refund application along with all supporting documents electronically on common portal with effect from 26.09.2019.

vi. The Petitioner claims to have informed the Department that they have already filed refund application for the tax periods February 2019 to August 2019 and the said applications were filed manually on 21.08.2019 due to non-availability of electronic refund module. Correspondence between the Department and the Petitioner took place and ultimately nothing happened. But, however, on 21.07.2020, the 4th Respondent informed the Petitioner that his Office has issued Form GST RFD-06, [rejection order], on the ground of non-submission of application for refund claim along with necessary supporting documents.

vii. On coming to know about the same, the Petitioner herein sent E-mail, dated 22.07.2020, informing that they have not received physical copy of the rejection order and that the same is also not available in the common portal. In response to the same, physical copies of the same were furnished on 28.07.2020.

viii. In view of the above circumstances, the present Writ Petition came to be filed, seeking the reliefs referred to above.

2. A counter came to be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

3. The relevant paragraphs in the Counter are as under:

“7. It is submitted that the procedure and time line will be observed in the cases where the applications received physically to the jurisdictional authority. In the Petitioner’s case physical copy of application along with supporting documents have not been received in order to follow the procedure, time line and natural justice. The CBIC has categorically stated that the applicants can file the refund application on the common portal and need to submit the hard copy of RFD-01A physically to the jurisdictional officer along with all the supporting documents for processing of refund applications. Without the physical copies, the refund sanctioning authority would not follow the procedure as was mentioned at Para A.1 of grounds of petition, time line and natural justice. If the petitioner submits all the relevant documents then the sanctioning authority would have been issued speaking order. Without any documents speaking order cannot be issued. After rejecting the RFD-01A vide RFD-06 dated 27.09.2019 through online, the petitioner vide their letter dated 16.06.2020 approached the tax authority for guidance in the matter and for further action to be taken by them. In response to their letter, the refund sanctioning authority informed the petitioner that your refund applications were rejected on the ground of non-submission of manual copies and advised to file an appeal before the appellate authority. After lapse of nine months from the date of rejection order the petitioner approached the tax authority.

8. The RFD-06 rejection order categorically stated that the refund application was rejected on the ground of non-submission of physical copies. The petitioner has not submitted physical copies to the jurisdictional tax authority to process the refund application thereupon the petitioner desecrated procedure envisaged by the CBIC. Therefore there is a lapse on part of the petitioner in processing of refund by the tax authority. The petitioner not submitted any physical copies of the refund application to the tax authority. Thus, the question of giving notice and personal hearing in the petitioner’s case does not arise. Without having any physical copies of the refund application before the refund sanctioning authority the question of natural justice and personal hearing does not arise. The question of giving an opportunity of being heard is arises only in the cases where the refund application accompanies with all the supporting documents. Thus there is no violation in the petitioner’s case. The violation of principles of natural justice arises in the cases where the application accompanied all the supporting documents and refund sanctioning authority rejects without being heard. In the petitioner’s case there is no violation of natural justice inasmuch as no physical copies were submitted in support of their refund claim.”

4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, both the Counsel reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition and the Counter, in support of their arguments, and ultimately it was agreed upon that the Petitioner herein shall make a fresh application seeking refund, in terms of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18.11.2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, within a period of three [03] weeks from today.

5. Having regard to the above and with the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Petitioner to make a fresh application for refund claim enclosing necessary supporting documents in terms of Circular No. 125/44/2019- GST, dated 18.11.2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, within a period of three [03] weeks from today. In which event, the authorities shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of Three weeks thereafter.

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.