Amit Cotton Industries VS Principal Commissioner Of Customs

directive) issued by a court is to be responded to or addressed immediately, without delay. This is often used in urgent legal matters requiring swift resolution.

In this particular case, Mr. Parth Bhatt, who is the learned counsel representing the respondents, has waived the service of the notice of the rule. Waiving service means that the respondents’ counsel has opted not to receive the formal notice that would typically be delivered to them. This action suggests that the respondents are not contesting the rule or are ready to comply with it without the need for formal service procedures.

The implication of Mr. Bhatt’s waiver is that the process is streamlined, and the court can proceed with the matter without waiting for the formal notice to be served on the respondents. This could expedite the legal proceedings, allowing the court to address the issue at hand more promptly.

In summary, the rule is to be returned forthwith, and Mr. Parth Bhatt, representing the respondents, has waived the need for formal notice, indicating readiness to proceed with the matter immediately.

In the writ-application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant seeks several judicial remedies regarding the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on goods that were exported, classified as ‘Zero Rated Supplies’. The application is presented to the court with a plea for immediate action and relief concerning the refund process.

The specific reliefs sought by the writ-applicant include:

1. Admission of the Petition: The writ-applicant requests that the court admit the petition for consideration.

2. Approval of the Petition: The writ-applicant seeks the court’s approval to grant the reliefs as requested in the petition.

3. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus: The writ-applicant asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus or another appropriate writ. This would direct the respondent authorities to promptly sanction the refund of IGST that was paid for the goods exported under ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ as detailed in the shipping bills submitted with the application.

Mr. Parth Bhatt, the counsel representing the respondents, has waived the service of the notice of rule on behalf of the respondents, indicating that the respondents are prepared to respond to the application without the need for formal notice. The application, therefore, seeks an expedited judicial review and intervention to facilitate the refund process for the IGST paid on the exported goods. The outcome of this petition could have significant implications for the writ-applicant’s business. operations and compliance with tax regulations related to export duties.

In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks various judicial remedies concerning the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) related to exports. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned counsel, has submitted a plea for immediate action from the court, specifically asking for the following:

1. Admission of the Petition: The petitioner requests that the court admits the writ petition for consideration.

2. Approval of the Petition: The petitioner seeks the court’s approval to allow the petition, which primarily addresses the refund issue.

3. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus: The petitioner asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the respondent authorities to sanction the refund of IGST paid for goods exported under the ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ as specified in the shipping bills referenced in the petition.

4. Payment of Interest on Refund: The petitioner requests the court to order the respondent authorities to pay interest at a rate of 9% on the refunded IGST amount from the date of the shipping bills until the date the refund is actually paid, arguing that the withholding of the refund is arbitrary and illegal.

5. Ex-Parte Ad Interim Order: The petitioner seeks an ex-parte, ad interim order favoring the immediate payment of the refund and interest as mentioned in the previous points, pending a final decision on the case.

6. Cost of Litigation: The petitioner contends that the need to approach the court is due to the illegal actions of the respondent authorities and requests that the court directs the respondent authorities to pay the litigation costs incurred by the petitioner.

The application underscores the petitioner’s frustration with the delays and alleged illegal actions of the respondent authorities in processing the refund of IGST for exported goods, thereby compelling them to seek judicial intervention.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: