Nayara Energy Limited VS Union Of India

In this case, the petitioners have approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention against the inaction of the respondents. The petitioners have made the following requests:

a) They seek a writ of Mandamus or a similar directive compelling the respondents to immediately disburse a refund amounting to Rs. 50,88,42,582/- to Petitioner No.1.

b) They request a writ of Mandamus or an equivalent directive requiring the respondents to pay interest on the refund amount of Rs. 50,88,42,582/- to Petitioner No.1 as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.

c) They ask the court to order the disbursement of the sanctioned refund amount along with the accrued interest while the petition is still under consideration.

The petitioners argue that despite being entitled to this refund and the interest on it under the law, the respondents have failed to act, necessitating judicial intervention to enforce their rights.

The petitioner is seeking ad-interim relief and the provision of costs for the Petition, along with any further reliefs that the Court may deem fit and proper considering the circumstances. At the time of issuing notice on September 9, 2021, the Court passed an order addressing the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus for the disbursement of a refund amounting to Rs.50,88,42,582/-, which was sanctioned to petitioner no.1 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central GST, Division-2, on August 5, 2020, including applicable interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has expressed grievances that, despite the sanctioning of the refund by respondent no.3, the amount has not been disbursed even after a year from the date of sanction, and no replies have been given to any of the communications sent by the petitioner regarding this matter.

In the context of ad-interim relief as specified in clause (c) above, the petitioner seeks costs for the petition to be provided and further reliefs deemed fit by the court considering the case’s circumstances. On 09.09.2021, the court issued an order as follows: The petitioner requested a writ of mandamus for disbursing the refund amount of Rs. 50,88,42,582/- sanctioned on 5th August 2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central GST, Division-2, along with applicable interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed a grievance that despite the sanction, the refund had not been disbursed even after a year, and no reply was received to any communications sent in this regard. Ms. Dimple Gohil, the petitioner’s advocate, confirmed the non-receipt of replies and mentioned that there was a challenge to the sanction order by the respondent authority, yet no stay had been granted against it, prompting the writ of mandamus. Consequently, the court issued a notice returnable on 23rd September 2021, with Mr. Lodha, Senior Standing Counsel, waiving service of notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Additionally, respondent no. 3 was to be served through speed post at the petitioner’s cost, and an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Principal Commissioner..

The petitioners are seeking interim relief to cover the costs of the petition and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court in the given circumstances. On 09.09.2021, the court issued a notice concerning the petitioners’ request for a writ of mandamus. This request pertains to the disbursement of a refund amounting to Rs. 50,88,42,582/- which was sanctioned on 5th August 2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central GST, Division-2, along with applicable interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite the sanctioning of the refund, the amount has not been disbursed even after one year. No responses have been received to any communications sent by the petitioners regarding this issue. Ms. Dimple Gohil, the petitioners’ advocate, confirmed the lack of response to these communications. Additionally, there has been a challenge to the order by the respondent authority, but no stay has been granted. Consequently, the court issued a notice returnable on 23rd September 2021, with Mr. Lodha waiving service of notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, and respondent no.3 to be served via speed post at the petitioners’ cost. The Principal Commissioner of Rajkot filed an affidavit-in-reply, not disputing that the Refund Sanction Order dated 05.08.2020, based on a judgment from 23.01.2020 in the case of M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, ordered the credit of Rs.50,88,42,582/- to the petitioner and Rs.39,05,121/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund. However, due to system limitations in Form RFD-05, the sanctioned amount could not be credited as needed, which led to the non-disbursement of the refund.

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for the disbursement of a refund amounting to Rs.50,88,42,582 sanctioned to petitioner no.1 on August 5th, 2020, by the Deputy Commissioner of Central GST, Division-2, along with applicable interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017; the petitioner claims the respondent no.3 has not disbursed the sanctioned refund amount even after one year, nor responded to any communications regarding this matter; during the hearing on September 9th, 2021, Ms. Dimple Gohil, representing the petitioner, confirmed that no reply had been received to their communications; the court issued a notice returnable on September 23rd, 2021, with Mr. Lodha, Senior Standing Counsel, waiving service of notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, and instructed that respondent no.3 be served via speed post at the petitioner’s cost; the Principal Commissioner of Rajkot, in an affidavit-in-reply, acknowledged that the Refund Sanction Order dated August 5th, 2020, was issued in favor of the petitioners, based on a judgment dated January 23rd, 2020, in the case of M/s.Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application No.726 of 2018, and ordered the credit of Rs.50,88,42,582 to the petitioner and Rs.39,05,121 to the Consumer Welfare Fund; the respondents stated that the Refund Sanction Order (RED-06) was issued online on August 5th, 2020, but the sanctioned amount could not be credited due to the system’s inability to bifurcate the amount as required, and the issue was raised with higher authorities; the Director General, System, Chennai, informed on April 28th, 2021, that the functionality to credit the sanctioned amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund was under development and advised to keep the sanction order pending for refund applications requiring such bifurcation; however, no further updates have been provided regarding the development and deployment of this functionality, leaving the petitioner’s refund pending.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: