ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. The petitioners herein seeks the invocation of the writ jurisdiction for quashing the show cause notices dated 04.03.2020 and 11.03.2020 on the ground that they have been issued without assignment of any reasons for proposing the rejection of the claim of the petitioners of refund. The petitioners also challenged the orders dated 23.03.2020 passed without availing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and passed without assigning any reasons.

2. The prayers sought for are as follows: -

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records in the present case, and after going into the question of legality, quash and set aside the impugned notices and impugned orders issued to the petitioner no.1;

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondent to dispose of and sanction its refund claims dated 03.02.2020 in accordance with law;

(c) For costs of the petition be provided for; AND

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

3. The petitioner is an integrated steel manufacturer with a manufacturing facility comprising of pellet making, iron making, steel making etc. The finished goods manufactured by the petitioner no.1 are exported as also cleared to the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and such supplies are reckoned as ‘Zero Rated’ supply in terms of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) Act. The supply is also entitled to avail the ITC in respect of the goods and services used for making Zero Rated supplies even when they are exempted.

3.1. The two separate applications came to be filed by the petitioners during the period from July, 2019 to September, 2019, both dated 03.02.2020 for refund of unutilized compensation cess under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules accompanied by the requisite documents.

3.2. Pursuant to the filing of these applications on 03.02.2020, the two separate acknowledgments were received by the appellant from the Assistant Commissioner, Division-4, Surat. The petitioners have received two notices dated 11.03.2020 and 04.03.2020 under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules sought to reject the applications for refund. Both the show cause notices stated that the petitioners’ refund applications were liable to be rejected on the ground that rejection as per the said show cause notices was “other”. It was also asked to furnish the reply within 15 days.

3.3. Since the show cause notices did not specify the reasons for proposing to reject the refund application, for they themselves being unclear and vague, no opportunity was made available to the petitioner no.1. The petitioner had replied to the same on 13.03.2020 and various contentions had been raised.

3.4. Once the orders of rejection came on 23.03.2020, without availing any opportunity of personal hearing, no reasons were assigned according to the petitioner in the impugned order for rejection, therefore the petitioner is before this Court with the above mentioned prayers.

4. On issuance of notice, respondent has appeared and filed the affidavit-in-reply through Mr. R.S.Tiwari, Joint Commissioner (In-situ), Division-IV, CGST and Central Excise, Surat, where all aspects in relation to the making of the application for refund of unutilized compensation cess amounting to Rs. 9,53,26,364/- and Rs. 4,57,285/- for the supply made to the SEZ under Section 54, has been accepted.

4.1. According to the respondent, the refund claim had been processed and since it did not include the value of the steel supply in the total adjusted turnover, two notices dated 11.03.2020 and