Afflatus International VS Union Of India

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus. This is a judicial order compelling a government agency or official to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to complete. Specifically, the petitioner is requesting that the respondents—presumably government authorities or departments—be directed to release a refund that is owed to the petitioner, along with the applicable interest.

Here is a long summary of the petition:

1. Petition Background: The petitioner has approached the court under the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Indian Constitution. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue certain writs to any person or authority, including the government, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Article 227 gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.

2. Relief Sought: The primary relief sought by the petitioner is the issuance of a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a command issued by a court to a public official or government entity to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to perform. In this case, the duty involves the release of a refund that is rightfully owed to the petitioner.

3. Refund Claim: The petitioner’s claim centers around a refund that has not been released by the respondents. The nature of this refund could relate to various contexts, such as tax refunds, duty drawbacks, refunds of deposits, or any other financial reimbursement owed by the government or its agencies.

4. Interest on Refund: In addition to the principal amount of the refund, the petitioner is also seeking interest. This interest is presumably claimed for the period during which the refund was wrongfully withheld, causing financial loss or hardship to the petitioner.

5. Legal Grounds: The petitioner argues that the withholding of the refund is unjust and unlawful. They likely cite relevant statutes, regulations, or precedents that establish their entitlement to the refund and the interest. The petition may outline the statutory or contractual basis for the refund and any interest provisions.

6. Respondents’ Obligation: The petitioner contends that the respondents have a clear and unequivocal duty to release the refund. This duty may arise from statutory obligations, administrative rules, or judicial precedents that mandate the timely payment of refunds by government authorities.

7. Delay and Hardship: The petition probably details the period of delay in the release of the refund and the consequent hardship faced by the petitioner. It may include a timeline of events, communications, and any responses (or lack thereof) from the respondents.

8. Court’s Intervention: By invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to compel the respondents to fulfill their legal duty. The court’s intervention is sought on the grounds of justice, equity, and good conscience.

9. Prayers and Remedies: The petitioner prays for specific reliefs including:

* A direction to the respondents to immediately release the refund amount.

* Payment of interest on the refund amount from the date it became due until the date of actual payment.

* Any other relief that the court deems fit in the interest of justice.

10. Supporting Documents: The petition is likely supported by various documents such as correspondences, receipts, orders, and any other relevant records that substantiate the petitioner’s claim.

In summary, the petitioner is seeking a judicial order (writ of mandamus) to compel the respondents to release a refund along with the interest that is due. The petition is grounded in the legal rights provided under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and emphasizes the respondents’ duty to act according to law.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release its refund along with interest. The petitioner, engaged in the business of exporting garments and holding GSTN No. 06AAGFA0878E1ZO, submitted its GST returns in Form 3B for the months of October to December 2017 and January 2018 to respondent No.3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications for refunds for these months in Form RFD-01A (Annexures P-2 to P-5).

Respondent No.3 acknowledged the petitioner’s refund claims by issuing Forms GST-PMT-03 on May 3, 2018 (Annexures P-6 to P-9), which accepted the claim for re-credit. However, on the same date, respondent No.3 issued orders (Annexures P-10 to P-13) rejecting the petitioner’s refund claims for the aforementioned months. In response, the petitioner submitted a representation on August 30, 2018 (Annexure P-14), seeking reconsideration of the rejection and the release of the refund along with applicable interest.

The petitioner’s grievance arises from the rejection of their refund claims despite the initial acceptance for re-credit, prompting the need for judicial intervention to secure the release of the refunds and any associated interest as per the law. The petition seeks to compel the respondents through a writ of mandamus to fulfill their obligation to process and release the refund amounts due to the petitioner.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release a refund along with interest. The petitioner, engaged in the business of exporting garments, holds GSTN No. 06AAGFA0878E1ZO and filed returns for October to December 2017 and January 2018 in Form 3B with respondent No. 3. Applications for refunds for these periods were submitted in Form RFD-01A. Respondent No. 3 acknowledged these refund claims by issuing Forms GST-PMT-03 on 3.5.2018, indicating acceptance for re-credit for the stated months. However, the refund claims were subsequently rejected by respondent No. 3 through orders issued on the same date.

Following the rejection, the petitioner made a representation on 30.8.2018, seeking reconsideration, but received no response. Further reminders sent on 31.8.2018, 28.8.2018, and 14.9.2018 also went unanswered. The persistent lack of response led to the filing of the current writ petition.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that despite submitting the representation and reminders, no action has been taken by the respondents, prompting the plea for judicial intervention to ensure the release of the refund with applicable interest.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: