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:

“10.

(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.12,00,800/- paid in regard to the goods (Organic Soya Bean Feed Grade) exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ made vide aforesaid bills as tabulated in para 5.5 of this petition.

(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 mentioned in para 5.5 of this petition 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 three Shipping Bills dated 28.07.2017, 02.08.2017 and 07.08.2017.

3. The petitioners are engaged in trading and export of Organic Soya Bean Feed Grade and they hold valid GST Registration No.23ADCPA0509R1ZU. It is the case of the petitioners that they had exported goods (Organic Soya Bean Feed Grade) under various invoices for which they had paid IGST of an amount of Rs.12,00,800/-. 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 petitioner’s Company had claimed drawback at higher rate by punching option “1201A” instead of claiming drawback at lower rate by punching option “1201B”, while generating shipping bills. It is mainly contended that by mistake, it had claimed due drawback @ 1% (higher rate) by punching option “1201A” instead of claiming the same at 0.15% only (lower rate) by punching option “1201B”. It is further claimed by the petitioner that due drawback @ 1% towards all six shipping bills was for an amount of Rs.4,36,748/-. The differential drawback @ 0.85% towards all six shipping bills was around Rs.3,71,236/-. In such circumstances, the drawback at lower rate (0.15%) of Rs.65,512/- was retained in respect of aforesaid six shipping bills and rest of the differential drawback amount was returned back by Demand Draft No.049160 dated 28.8.2019 which was deposited by the Customs Department for which separate Challan acknowledging the receipt of differential amount has been issued by the respondents. The petitioners further claimed that IGST aggregating to an amount of Rs.12,00,800/- against three shipping bills was paid by the petitioner at the relevant stage. However, it is being a case of “Zero Rated Supplies”, the petitioner had raised claim for refund of aforesaid IGST amount. It is further prayed by the petitioner that statutory returns in the form of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B were submitted in the month of July-August itself and therefore, having complied with the mandatory provisions prescribed under the relevant laws, the petitioner had raised claim for refund of IGST. The petitioner has further referred to the letter F.No.VIII/48-865/EXP/AMD/MP&SEZ/17-18 dated 22.09.2017 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (Export), Custom House, Mundra, whereby the respondent Authority has sanctioned the amendment in the shipping bills including the three shipping bills in question. In light of aforesaid fact, the petitioner Company had pursued its