ORDER :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have essentially prayed for following reliefs:

“11.

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to immediately sanction the refund of IGST aggregating to Rs.14,94,739/- paid in regard to the goods (Comber Noil) exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ made vide aforesaid bills.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% to the petitioner herein on the amount of refund of IGST mentioned hereinabove from the date of shipping bill up till the date on which the amount of refund is paid to the petitioner herein, as the same is arbitrarily and illegally withheld by the respondent authorities.

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant an ex parte ad interim order in favour of the petitioner herein in terms of prayers clause “C” and “D” hereinabove.”

2. The principal grievance raised by the petitioners is the inaction of the respondent Authorities regarding refund of IGST towards Shipping Bills dated 05.07.2017 to 10.08.2017.

3. The petitioners are engaged in trading and export of cotton, yarn, textiles, fabrics, etc. and they hold valid GST Registration No.27AAKCS0140G1ZL. It is the case of the petitioners that they had exported goods (Comber Noil) under various invoices for which they had paid IGST of an amount of Rs.14,94,739/-. The petitioners have referred to and relied upon form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, which they claimed to have filed within prescribed time. It is the case of the petitioners that inadvertently, the petitioners Company had claimed drawback at higher rate by punching option “5202A” and option “600699A” instead of claiming drawback at lower rate by punching option “5202B” and option “600699B”, while generating shipping bills. It is claimed by the petitioners that having realized the aforesaid mistake, vide letter dated 12.09.2017, had immediately requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Export), Customs House, Mundra, to amend the aforesaid shipping bills in exercise of powers conferred under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The request was also made to the effect of punching of “A” to be treated as punching of “B”. On 15.09.2017, the petitioner Company had submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Customs House, Mundra to consider their case for IGST refund and had further disclosed their intention to not to claim higher drawback thereby showing their willingness to give back differential drawback amount. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner Company had drawn Demand Drafts bearing Nos.332754 and 332755, dated 17.10.2017 and Demand Draft No.044281, dated 13.09.2017 for an aggregate amount of Rs.3,39,245/- towards differential drawback amount with interest and the said Demand Drafts were realized by the Customs upon deposit of the same on 18.09.2017 and 23.10.2017 respectively. In light of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner Company has pursued their case of refund of IGST by making various representations since then, but in vain. In support of such fact, the petitioner Company has placed on record various representations dated 30.10.2017, 23.07.2018, 27.09.2018 and 15.11.2019.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. D.K. Trivedi, for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner had exported goods and effected “Zero Rated Supply” under Section 16 of the IGST Act on the said goods of total invoices value which is quoted in tabular format as under: