Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
Petitioner is a partnership firm, which deals in Seeds, Food Grains etc. According to the petitioner, he purchased rejected wheat from Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. (respondent no. 1 herein) in the year 2017. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 wrongly deducted G.S.T., amounting to ₹ 10,23,484/- from the security deposit made by the petitioner with respondent no. 1; although, as per the advance ruling issued by the Appellate Authority, Goods & Service Tax for State of Uttarakhand, damaged wheat seeds attracted NIL rate of G.S.T. It is further the case of the petitioner that, despite repeated representations, the Competent Authority in respondent no. 1 has not taken any decision in the matter and has not initiated any steps for claiming refund of G.S.T. from the Competent Authority.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1-3 to correct the outward supplies vis-à-vis petitioner firm in Annual Return 2017-2018 and apply for refund of excess tax paid via RDF 01 A and pay/ refund the entire amount collected from petitioner as GST alongwith interest thereon forthwith.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the GST Authorities/ Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 to refund the amount of GST wrongly charged & collected from it by Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd.
(iii) Award suitable exemplary compensation to the petitioner firm from the respondents for illegally and wrongly charging/ recovering GST amount on rejected wheat seeds without any authority/ sanction of law and for withholding the same without legal sanction.”
Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that, in view of Section 54 (8) (e) of G.S.T. Act, prayer no. 2 cannot be granted to the petitioner. He further submits that, as per statutory scheme, the G.S.T. can be refunded to the same dealer from whom it is collected. Therefore, there cannot be any direction to the Competent Authority to refund G.S.T. to the petitioner, as it was deposited by respondent no. 1.
Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to Managing Director, Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. to take decision on petitioner’s representation dated 20.09.2019 (annexed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) as early as possible; but, not later than eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.