1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition;

C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to immediately sanction the refund of IGST aggregating to ₹ 5,81,199/- paid in regard to the goods (Agro Food Products & Species) exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ made vide aforesaid shipping bills;

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% to the petitioner herein on the amount of refund of IGST mentioned hereinabove from the date of shipping bill up till the date on which the amount of refund is paid to the petitioner herein, as the same is arbitrarily and illegally withheld by the respondent authorities;

E. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant an ex-parte, ad interim order in favour of the petitioner herein in terms of prayer clause ‘C’ and ‘D’ hereinabove;

F. Since the petitioner are constrained to approach Your Lordships by way of this petition only because of illegal act of respondent authorities, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay a cost of this litigation to the petitioner herein;

G. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/(s) that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice in favor of the petitioner.”

2 On 6th January 2022, this Court passed the following order:

“1. We have heard Mr. D.K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant.

2. The controversy involved in the present litigation is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Amit Cotton Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs reported in 2019(29) G.S.T.L. 200 (Guj.), which has been later followed in the case of M/s. Vimala Food Products Vs. Union of India, Special Civil Application No.16028 of 2020 decided on 22.12.2021, and in the case of M/s. Aim Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Special Civil Application No.15648 of 2020 decided on 22.12.2021. Despite the settled position of law, the Deputy Commissioner (IGST), Mundra vide his communication in writing to the writ applicant dated 05.07.2021 has referred to the CBIC Circular No.37/2018 dated 09.10.2018.

3. The Deputy Commissioner (IGST), Mundra, owes an explanation as to why despite there being a direct judgment of this High Court on the point in question duly affirmed by the Supreme Court such unreasonable stand is being taken, which is nothing short of contempt. We take notice of the fact that because of such attitude on the part of the Department, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Aim Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and M/s. Vimala Food Products Ltd. (Supra), to which one of us (Nisha M. Thakore J.) was a party, directed the refund of the amount towards the IGST along with interest @ 9%. We take serious note of such high handed attitude on the part of the Officer in defiance of the judgments of this Court.

4. Let Notice be issued to the respondents for final disposal returnable on 19.01.2022.

Direct service to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is permitted and the respondent No.1 Union of India shall be served by Email.”

3 We have hard Mr. D. K. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Nikunt Raval, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4 Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Trivedi made a statement that this writ application need not now be adjudicated on merits as the refund has been sanctioned and paid to his client with 9% interest.

5 In view of the aforesaid statement made by Mr. Trivedi, we dispose of this writ application accordingly.