A taxpayer is not required to make repeated applications for seeking a refund after succeeding in appellate proceedings, and the refund claim is required to be processed in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

"(i) Issue a writ in the seeking writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent department to sanction the refund claims filed by the Petitioner under. Refund Application dated 20.02.2023 (Reference no. AAA070223060035R) for the amount of Rs.7,45,296/- for the period January, 2021 to March, 2021 and Refund Application dated 20.02.2023 (Reference No. AA070223060088G) for the amount of Rs.9,74,094/- for the period April, 21 to Sept, 21, along with the applicable interest as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and rules made thereunder;

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent Department to allow Form GST PMT-03 with respect to the amount of Rs.31,640/- for the period January, 2021 to March, 2021 and Rs.22,482/- for the period April, 2021 to September, 2021 (iii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant relief to the petitioner."

2. The petitioner claims refund of Input Tax Credit (hereafter `ITC'), in respect of certain exports made under Letter of Undertaking (hereafter `LUT').

3. The petitioner's claim for refund relates to exports effected during the period January, 2021 to September, 2021.

4. The petitioner had filed two applications pertaining to the said Zero Rated Supplies under Section 54(3)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Act').

5. The respondent had acknowledged the receipt of the said claims, however, the said acknowledgment was not uploaded online and was not processed.

6. Although the petitioner filed the applications for refund (in Form GST RFD-01) on 20.04.2022; the respondent did not process the same within the stipulated period.

7. After much delay, on 19.05.2022, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice proposing denial of refund claimed by the petitioner on several grounds.

8. The petitioner sought time to respond to the said Show Cause Notice. However, the respondent rejected the petitioners claim in terms of Orders-in-Original (two in number) dated 17.06.2022. The petitioner appealed the said orders before the appellate authority.

9. The appellate authority examined the petitioner's challenge to the Orders-in-Original (two in number), bearing nos.: ZT0706220299219 and ZU0706220299086, both dated 17.06.2022 as well as the petitioner's claim for the refund of ITC.

10. The appeals were disposed of by Orders-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2023. The appellate authority partly allowed the petitioner's claim for refund to the extent of Rs.7,45,296/- instead of Rs.7,76,936/- as claimed by the petitioner for the period, January, 2021 to March, 2021 and further allowed the petitioner's claim to the extent of Rs.9,74,094/- instead of Rs.9,96,576/- as claimed by the petitioner, for the period, April, 2021 to September, 2021.

11. Notwithstanding that the petitioner had succeeded before the appellate authority, the respondent failed and neglected to process its claim for refund.

12. The petitioner had, once again, filed the claim for refund on the basis of the Orders-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2023. According to the respondent, the said application was deficient as it was not accompanied by an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner would refund the sanctioned amount along with interest in case it is found that the requirements of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act read with Section 42(2) of the CGST Act, were not complied with in respect of the amount refunded.

13. It is material to note that the deficiency memo did not specifically indicate the said deficiency. It merely stated that "supporting documents attached are incomplete". Undisputedly, the petitioner had provided the copy of the Orders-in-Appeal on the basis of which it claimed the refunds.

14. In view of the above, clearly, there was no requirement to furnish any further documents to substant