JUDGMENT :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. The petitioner is engaged in providing customer solution service and majority of the persons to whom it serves are located outside India. It is engaged in export of services as per the GST legislation. The petitioner opted for the option under Subsection 3(a) of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘the IGST Act’). The petitioner exports its services under bond or letter of undertaking without payment of integrated tax and claims refund of unutilised input tax credit.

2. Application for refund of unutilised input tax credit was preferred by the petitioner on 27.01.2021 aggregating to Rs.2,84,04,175/- for the period February, 2019 to March, 2020. This was assigned to the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax Circle- 2, Ahmedabad. The petitioner also substantiated its claim with necessary documents as sought by the authority, the physical copies of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (‘the FIRCs’ hereinafter) for the payments received during the period of refund application also have been tendered. This has been done in satisfaction of the authorities in terms of Rule 89(4)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (‘the CGST Rules, 2017’ hereinafter). The FIRCs for the current period and FIRCs for invoices pertaining to the current period for which the payments were received also have been separated.

3. The authority issued a show cause notice on 16/18.03.2021 under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 in Form GST RFD-08 proposing the rejection of the refund application to the extent of Rs.36,85,893/-. Thus the show cause notice limited itself to the rejection of the refunds to the extent of the said amount of Rs.36,85,893/- out of the total refund claim of Rs.2,84,04,175/-.

4. On 24.03.2021, the petitioner replied, in detailed, to the said show cause notice vide RFD-09 justifying why it is eligible for the refund to the tune of Rs.36,85,893/-.

4.1 During the course of personal hearing, on 24.03.2021 itself, the oral submissions have also been made by the petitioner. The officer concerned proceeded on leave on personal grounds and therefore, the matter was assigned to another officer, who was required to give a fresh opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Couple of times, it had been followed up as due to pandemic, the personal hearing was not allowed, therefore, the request was made through the virtual hearing.

4.2 It is lamented that on 11/13.05.2021, the newly appointed officer, without availing any opportunity of hearing passed an order on 11/13.05.2021 rejecting the entire claim of refund amounting to Rs.2,84,04,175/-.

4.3 On 23.06.2021 the petitioner had attempted to point out the apparent mistake committed in passing the order impugned and sought rectification of the same. However, no response has been received from the respondent.

4.4 Therefore, on 12.08.2021 considering the stringent provisions of limitation for filing an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and not being conversant with the decision of the Apex Court and the High Court, the petitioner preferred the appeal in Form GST APL 01 before the Appellate Authority challenging the order, however, the appeal has not been listed for hearing. The petitioner, therefore, is aggrieved and approached this Court.

5. This Court while issuing the notice to the respondent on 08.12.2021 passed the following order:

“1.Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

“8. In the aforesaid premises, the petitioner prays as under:

A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated May 11/12,2021 passed by the respondent herein at Annexure D hereto and directing the respondent to restrict himself to the adjudication limited to the scope of the show cause notice dated March 16/18, 2021 at Annexure B hereto which is limited to the balance amount of R