1 Prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition read as under:

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the Refund Rejection Order No.ZY2707220428298 dated 29th July 2022 (Exhibit B) in Form-GST-RFD-06 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the refund claim of Rs.88,46,01,539/- filed by the petitioner for the period October 2020 to December 2020.

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the respondents by themselves, their subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith sanction refund of (I) Rs.102,74,14,843/- for the period April 2019 to September 2019; and (ii) refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- for the period October 2020 and December 2020, alongwith interest.”

2. As regards the refund of Rs.1,02,74,14,843/- claimed in prayer clause (b), Mr. Shroff states that an additional affidavit of one Suyog Nawal affirmed on 17th October 2022 is being filed, in which it is stated that respondent no.3 has sanctioned refund of Rs.1,02,74,14,843/- for the period April 2019 to September 2019. Though, technically this claim of petitioner has been worked out, the problem, as rightly submitted by Mr. Shroff is respondent no.3 has not granted interest on this refund amount.

3. Mr. Mishra, on instructions from Ms Sumity Garg, Dy. Commissioner, CGST & CEX, Mumbai Central Division VIII, who is present in court, states that interest could not be granted to petitioner because the department had not received the interest calculations or claim from petitioner. We find this stand of respondents rather surprising because whatever application petitioner may file, respondents would not simply grant the amount without ascertaining that petitioner’s claim is correct. Therefore, in our view, this is nothing but a baseless excuse.

4. Mr. Mishra, on instructions from Ms Garg further states that within one week of receiving the application from petitioner, the interest amount will be paid. If for any reason petitioner is unable to file an online application due to any technical glitches, petitioner is at liberty to file a physical application with said Ms Garg and the application will be promptly processed. Mr. Shroff states that the application with calculations will be filed latest by 21st October 2022. Mr. Mishra’s statement that within one week of receiving the application, the same will be processed and amount will be paid, is accepted as undertaking to this court.

5. As regards prayer clause (a) and the second part of prayer clause (b), i.e., refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- for the period October 2020 to December 2020, respondent no.3 had rejected petitioner’s refund application by the impugned order dated 29th July 2022. Mr. Mishra states that department has reviewed that order and has also filed an appeal under sub-Section (2) of Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). In effect, Mr. Mishra states that even department has not accepted the impugned order and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- together with interest, if any. Mr. Mishra states that this amount of Rs.88,46,01,539/- together with interest will be paid to petitioner within one week of an application being made by petitioner. In our view, no such application is required because petitioner had already filed the application on which the impugned order was passed and department itself has accepted that the impugned order was wrong. Therefore, respondents shall process petitioner’s original application for refund together with interest and pay the amount on or before 31st October 2022. At the same time, petitioner is at liberty to file such an application, should they wish to.

6. By consent, the impugned order dated 29th July 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

7. Petition disposed.

8. Mr. Mishra states that respondents are considering to challenge the order and judgment dated 4th July 2022 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.3221 of 2021 with Writ Petition (L) No.12860 of 2022. Mr. Mishra states that liberty be given to respondents to file an SLP, if so advised, notwithstanding the order passed today or the refund granted to petitioner. That liberty is always available to the department.