JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs:

(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No.4 (Exhibit “A”);

(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents to forthwith sanction the refund of Rs.11,69,07,326 as claimed by the Petitioner along with the appropriate interest;

(c) pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents by an interim order and injunction to forthwith deposit an amount of Rs.11,69,07,326 in this Hon’ble Court with a liberty to the Petitioner to withdraw the same, without prejudice to the Petitioner’s right of refund of the actual amount along with appropriate interest;

(d) for interim relief in terms of prayer (c) above; and

(e) for costs of the Petition;

(f) for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

3. The petitioner is engaged interalia in providing engineering consulting services to its group entities located outside India. During the relevant period, the petitioner exported consulting services to its group entities outside India, without payment of GST thereon. Consequently, the petitioner became eligible to claim refund of the ITC availed on the inputs and input services utilized for the export of the said services. To such effect an application came to be made on 31 December 2021. On 1 February 2022, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner raising an objection to the petitioner’s claim, interalia on the ground of non disclosure of invoice details, etc. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice by its reply dated 14 February 2022. By an order dated 22 February 2022 passed in Form GST RFD-06, the refund claim as made by the petitioner was rejected, against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2. By an order dated 11 October 2022, the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed intreralia holding that the letters issued by the HSBC were sufficient proof of correlation of the invoice number/date with the relevant Bank Realisation Certificates/the FIRCs.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 11 October 2022 passed in an appeal, the petitioner again filed a refund claim on 29 November 2022 as per the procedure. On such refund claim, the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX (Central Excise) issued a show cause notice dated 28 December 2022, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund claim ought not to be rejected on the ground of non disclosure of invoice details of FIRCs. Such show cause notice was responded by the petitioner by its reply dated 11 January 2023, pointing out that these issues were considered by the Appellate Authority in adjudicating the appeal and a finding of fact was recorded, that there is sufficient proof and correlation between the invoices and FIRCs. It was also contended that such issues cannot be gone into in any such adjudication as purportedly opened by the show cause notice dated 28 December 2022, on the refund application. The Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order dated 27 January 2023 rejected the petitioner’s refund claim whereby he confirmed the show cause notice. It is against such order the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The primary contention as urged by M