Case tittle | AAR Impex VS Union of India |
Court | Delhi High Court |
Honourable Judge | Justice Prateek Jalan |
Citation | 2020 (08) GSTPanacea 133 HC Delhi W.P.(C) 4464 OF 2020 |
Judgment Date | 13-August-2020 |
The writ petition presented includes the following requests for relief:
1. A writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to ₹43,36,111/- to the Petitioner along with interest.
2. A writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to…
(Note: The summary captures the key elements of the prayers within the petition. For a full summary, the continuation of the second request is required.
In the present case, the Petitioner requests the following:
1. The Respondents should be directed to release the duty drawback amounting to Rs. 19,94,236/- to the Petitioner.
2. A writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus should be issued to direct the Respondents to remove the alert against the IEC No. 0516964941.
3. A writ or direction in the nature of mandamus should be issued to direct the Respondents to remove the alert against the GNSTIN bearing No. 07BHKPK3078CIZE.
4. The cost of the petition should be granted.
5. Any other further orders as may be deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case should be passed.
In this case, the petitioner requests the court to issue several writs of mandamus, directing the respondents to:
1. Release the duty drawback amounting to Rs. 19,94,236/- to the petitioner.
2. Remove the alert against the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) No. 0516964941.
3. Remove the alert against the Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) bearing No. 07BHKPK3078CIZE.
4. Grant the cost of the petition.
5. Pass any further orders deemed fit and necessary based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties and examining the case’s facts and circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents’ inaction in not releasing the IGST and the due duty drawbacks. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated that, regarding the additional requests or prayers outlined in the writ petition, they are not being pursued at this time.
In the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to pursue the additional requests at this time. Consequently, the court has directed the relevant respondent authorities to make a decision regarding the release or non-release of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with any applicable interest, as well as the duty drawback owed to the petitioner. This decision should be made in accordance with the applicable laws, rules, regulations, and government policies relevant to the case. The authorities are instructed to complete this process as soon as possible, preferably within three weeks from the date of this order.
In the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to pursue the additional requests at this time. Consequently, the court has directed the relevant respondent authorities to make a decision regarding the release or non-release of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with any applicable interest, as well as the duty drawback owed to the petitioner. This decision should be made in accordance with the applicable laws, rules, regulations, and government policies relevant to the case. The authorities are instructed to complete this process as soon as possible, preferably within three weeks from the date of this order.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law: