JUDGMENT :

DEVAN M. DESAI, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“12...(A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Order or direction for calling upon the refund application of the petitioner and after going through the same, Respondent No. 3 may be ordered to sanction the refund claim of the Petitioner in terms of the provisions of law.

(B) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Order or direction directing the Respondents, their servants, agents or representatives to adjudicate the refund Application of IGST paid on export of the goods along with duty drawback without any further delay and remove the tagging of “Red flag” against the Petitioner.

(C) That pending Notice, admission and disposing of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents, their sub-ordinates, agents or their representatives:

(i) to forthwith sanction the refund claim of the Petitioner with such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) to direct the Respondents, their sub-ordinates, agents or their representatives to decide the pending refund applications forthwith without any further delay.

(D) for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (c) above.

(E) for costs of the petition/application and orders thereon and;

(F) for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Hardik Modh for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel Priyank Lodha for the respondent.

3. Since the issue involved in the present petition is in a very narrow compass, learned advocates appearing for the parties have requested to take-up this petition for final hearing.

4. Hence, Rule. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Priyank Lodha waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondents.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

5.1 The petitioner has challenged inaction on the part of respondents of not sanctioning refund claims of Integrated Goods and Service Tax paid on export of goods and duty drawback eligible to the petitioner without any reason.

5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner availed input tax credit as per the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’ for short) on the goods and services purchased by the petitioner. The goods and services are used in manufacture of submersible pumps which are further supplied in India and exported outside India.

5.3 As per Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner is eligible for the refund of paid Integrated Tax and also eligible for Customs Act, 1972.

5.4 The petitioner filed FORM GSTR-1 and FORM GSTR-3B and also paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax amount. The refund was not sanctioned to the petitioner as per the provisions of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A communication was issued by the petitioner to the jurisdictional CGST and SGST Department, inter-alia, informing about the non- receipt of the refund and also sought reasons for non- sanctioning of refund.

5.5 The petitioner on 23.07.2021 lodged a grievance at Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System. Reminders were also sent by the petitioner but there was no response from the respondent authority and the grievance was closed on 01.09.2021 without granting refund. It is the case of the petitioner that under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the proper Officer shall issue provisional refund within seven days while final refund shall be issued within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application.

5.6 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that if the refund is withheld, the proper Officer of Integrated Tax of the