Petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the refund rejection order dated 20.11.2019 passed in Reference No.DC(ST)STUIII/ 3/2018-19 by the respondent No.1.

2. Petitioner is an entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 later replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged in manufacturing and selling of Ready-Mix Concrete.

3. Petitioner had supplied the same to certain registered persons as well as persons, who are SEZ Units, in the financial year 2017-18. According to the petitioner, supplies were made to SEZ Units in July and August 2017 but due to lack of proper understanding as to the Authority before whom the Letter of Undertaking had to be submitted, the supplies were made without payment of GST. But, thereafter, on realizing the mistake, the petitioner had made payment of IGST in December 2017 along with applicable interest and requested the respondents to consider the matter and sanction the claim for refund at the earliest by filing a refund application dated 06.10.2018 for the tax period January 2018. Petitioner in the said application sought refund of IGST on supplies made to SEZ Units in December 2017.

4. The respondent No.1, who is the competent authority to process the refund claim, issued a Deficiency Memo in RFD-03 dated 05.01.2019 alleging that there were certain deficiencies in the claim made for the refund and advising the petitioner to rectify his refund application.

5. According to the petitioner, vide letter dated 09.02.2019, he clarified the deficiencies pointed out in the Deficiency Memo and also filed material in support of his contentions, which according to the petitioner was acknowledged by the office of the respondent No.1 on 14.02.2019.

6. Ultimately, the respondent No.1 rejected the refund claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 without adverting to the reply dated 09.02.2019 or the material filed along with the said reply by the petitioner.

7. Petitioner contends that the impugned order, having been passed ignoring the petitioner’s reply dated 09.02.2019 to the Deficiency Memo dated 05.01.2019, deserves to be set aside.

8. Sri M. Govind Reddy, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, does not deny that in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 there is no reference to the petitioner’s letter dated 09.02.2019 given to the Deficiency Memo dated 05.01.2019 issued by the respondent No.1.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed; the refund rejection order passed in Reference No.DC(ST)STUIII/ 3/2018-19 dated 20.11.2019 of the respondent No.1 is accordingly set aside; and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner‘s refund application dated 06.10.2018 as well as letter dated 09.02.2019 and annexures thereto and then pass a reasoned order within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.