In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“1. Pass an appropriate writ, or direction in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the refund rejection order dated: 08.03.2022 in respect of the period of January 2020 to March 2020 passed by the 3rd respondent produced at Annexure-H to the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the refund rejection order dated: 08.03.2022 in respect of the period of April 2020 to June 2020 passed by the 3rd respondent produced at Annexure-J to the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Consequently direct the Respondents to refund the claim made by the petitioner on account of ITC accumulated due to inverted Tax Structure.

4. To pass such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and Equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the refund rejection order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the 3^rd respondent is not only contrary to the material on record but also the Circular dated 06.07.2022 issued by the respondent during the pendency of the present petition, whereby the earlier Circular dated 31.03.2020 has been clarified by the respondent. In this context, it is pointed out that the earlier Circular dated 31.03.2020 does not prohibit issuance of refund in favour of the petitioner and said position qua the Circular dated 31.03.2020 has been clarified by the Gauhati High Court in the case of BMG Informatics Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Union of India & others – WP(C)/3878/2021 dated 02.09.2021. It is therefore submitted that the impugned rejection order passed by the respondents deserve to be quashed and the respondents are to be directed to refund the GST paid by the petitioner by issuing necessary directions in this regard.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while not disputing that during the pendency of the present petition, the Circular dated 06.07.2022 clarifying the earlier Circular dated 31.03.2020 has in fact been issued, however submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed, particularly when the petitioner has an equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order of rejection of the refund made by him. It is therefore submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the fact that the Circular dated 31.03.2020 does not come in the way of the petitioner claiming refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017, as held by the Gauhati High Court in BMG’s case supra, the said position has been reiterated and clarified by the respondents themselves by issuing the Circular dated 06.07.2022, which is sufficient to show that the petitioner is entitled to seek refund of the said amount paid by him.

6. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has remedy by way of an appeal, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and in the light of the material on record including the latest Circular dated 06.07.2022 and the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in BMG Informatics Pvt. Ltd.,’s case supra, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the said amount and the impugned order rejecting the refund deserves to be quashed and the respondents are to be directed to take necessary steps to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in this order.

7. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned refund rejection order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the period January 2020 to March 2020 and April 2020 to June 2020 at Annexures-H and J respectively are hereby quashed.

(iii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for refund of the difference of GST amount paid by him under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017, bearing in mind the observations made in this order as well as the Circular dated 06.07.2022 and the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in BMG Informatics Pvt. Ltd.,’s case supra, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.