High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the OIO No.7112024-25 (Refunds), dated 30/10/2024 passed by Respondent as being erroneous, illegal, arbitrary, passed in violation of principles of natural justice, violative of Article '14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of lndia, (ii) set aside the Show Cause Notice No.08/2020-2021( EPD) dated 1210212O21 issued by the Respondent No.1 dated 121}212}21(iit) direct the Respondent. No.1 to grant the refund of Rs.1,03,17,5841 '&r.t. : along with applicable interest, which is to be calculated from the date of refund application in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience- Couisel for the Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY/ SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER i i I I THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.3O7 of 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paut) Sri Karan Talwar, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. With the consent, finally heard

3. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 3O.IO.2O24, passed by respondent No.1 in Order-in-Original No.7 I I 2024-25 (Refunds).

4. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner for refund is turned down by the impugned order dated 30.1O.2O24. learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the events and urged that the petitioner's 12 refund applications were adjudic ated ex parte by a single communication dated 08.08.2019 by respondent No'1 thereby rejecting the applications for refund of countervailing duty *2 2 and special additional duty availabre as centrar Varr.re Added rax (CENVAT) credit under Section A2(3) of the centr,,il Goods and Services Ta: Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, "thr: cGST Act"). The petitiont:r filed al appeal before the Commissiont:,r (Appeals_I), Hyderabad, ,and the said authority, by an order dateci l3.Ol.2O2I, set aside th'= ex parte decision taken rride communication dated 08.08.20 i9.

5. In turr. respondent No.1 passed a fresh order, dated 17.OB.2O2O, in Order-in-Original (De nouo) \o.05/2020_ 21.Ref.EPD, rejecting the refund claims. The pet tioner again preferred al appeal before the principal Commissioner. of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Hyderabad, which was cl,:cided by an order dated 15.07.2021 thereby giving stamp of approval to the Order-in-Original dated lT .Og.2O2O. 6' Dissatisrfied with the appellate order, the petitior.:er preferred customs Aptr>eal No.30323 of 2o2r before the custrrms, Excise and Service 1-a-x Appeliate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyder,,rbad, which was decided ctn 2O.O2.2O24. The petitioner was held t: be entitled for refund uLnder Section U2(3) of the CGST A::t ald the i l l I t 3 adjudicating authority was directed to grant the refund within 45 days. 7 . The department preferred the Central Excise Appeal, namely CEA No.26 of 2024, before this Court against the order dated

20.O2.2024 passed by the CESTAT.

8. On 03.10.2024, the order of the CESTAT was implemented and refund was sanctioned. In the meantime, a show cause notice dated 12.02.2021 was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Cominissioner of Customs, Export Promotion Division, Hyderabad, to show cause as to why the refund claims of the petitioner should not be rejected. The petitioner filed a reply on lO.lO.2O24 and placed heavy reliance on the order of CESTAT dated 2O.O2.2O24 mentioned hereinabove and also the sanction order dated O3.1O.2O24. By passing the impugned order dated 3O.I0.2O24, respondent No.l rejected the refund holding that against the said order of CESTAT dated 20.02.2024, CE,A No.26 of 2024 filed. by the department is pending consideration before this Court. 4

9. A Division Bench of this Court has dismissed CEA No.26 of 2024 on 09.72.2024. Thus, as on date, there exists no reason for not follou,in€i the previous order of the CESTAT

10. karned Senior Standing Counsel for, CBIC di<,| not dispute that CEA I\o.26 of 2024 was dismissed on 09. 1,.2.2024. He submits that the department is contemplating to f ile a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 1 1. The paLrties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated abor,'e and no other point is pressed.

12. In the impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.1O.2O24, t,rre petitioner's claim was not allowed by taking shelter of.pendency of CtrA No.26 o1'2024, nhich was, admittedly. dismissecl.

13. Thus, v,e deem it proper to set aside the impugned Order_in_ original dated 30.70.2024 and restore the matter on the file of respondent llo. 1 . The said authority shall rehi:ar tl.Le petitioner arrd pass a fresh order in view of dismissal of CEA Na.26 of 2024. The petitione:: shall appear before respondent No. I on IZ.O3.2O2S at 11.30 am. The said authority shall hear the petitioner ajie;.h and pass al crder in accordance with law by t.aking into account i I 5 the previous order of the CESTAT and other provisions of law. The entire exercise be completed within thirty days from the date of the first appearance of the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// AS SD/.K.AMMAJI ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER 1' The Assistant commissioner of customs, Export promotion Division, 5th Floor, Jade Arcade, H.N_.1_7^_284_2s9, Ftit N;"505-'soa Mc. R.ii,.ijr.,oi"u circle, Secunderabad - 500003

2. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad GST and Customs Commissionerate GST Bhawan- opp,le' silii,;ilHorol erii";ffi;i;'- Hyderabad-500004.

3. The Secretarv to the Government Department of Revenue Ministry of _ Finance, Uni6n of tndia, New oeir,i iioiiiii"'"' '* 1. 9nu CC to Sri Karan Talwar, nOvocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes lsenio"ritaniing counset for CBIC) 6. One CC to Sri Pulimamidi Sha,shidhar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 7. one CC to Sri Gadi praveen xumir, oeputli bblidii"ic-"h"ra ii tnai"loeucl 8. Two CD Copies qfr- loPUCl TJ LS HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 ) R r.€.S I( 14 I\. (" c L) .1 03 ara 4p t a-xl,trcpEo I ? ( z ORDER WP.No.307 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+ 1V S 2-\ b