ORDER :

1. This petition is directed against alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not finalizing petitioner's claim for refund.

2. The petitioner runs a manufacturing unit for manufacture of electrical wires and allied products. It is involved in the business of export. The petitioner's case is that while exporting the goods out of India various export invoices, shipping bills and bills of lading were generated by shipping line, details of which have been given in paragraph 3(f) of the petition.

3. As Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act') read with Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the IGST Act') and Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules , 2017 (for short 'the CGST Rules') provides for treating the shipping bill as application for refund of IGST paid with regard to exported goods in terms of Rule 96 of CGST Rules, the petitioner raised a claim for refund.

4. It, however, appears that against the petitioner, certain allegations have been levelled regarding use of fake invoices to claim refund and investigation is going on. Despite petitioner's repeated representation, the respondents did not finally decide his claim for refund. A letter was issued in the month of October, 2020 (Annexure-18) by which the petitioner was informed that an alert was inserted against the petitioner for suspension of IGST refund and drawback in view of OM dated 29.05.2019 issued by the Commissioner (GST-Investigation). It was further informed that a letter dated 12.07.2019 has been sent to Jaipur GST Zone for seeking verification report in view of SOP dated 17.06.2019 and the office will take further action in the case after receipt of NOC from RMCC, DGARM as per revised SOP 23.01.2020.

5. As the refund application of the petitioner was not decided, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking appropriate direction for decision of his refund claim and also for refund.

6. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been disclosed that the respondents received certain input that the claim of the refund made by the petition is essentially based on fake invoices alleged to have been generated in a transaction with a non-existent company.

7. As a consequence, show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act has also been issued against the petitioner and proceedings have remained pending.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the provisions contained under Section 54 of the CGST Act and the provisions contained in Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, submitted that the application for refund cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The provision of law mandate decision of refund applications within stipulated period. He would further submit that as no deficiency was pointed out, the refund application ought to have been decided in favour of the petitioner within the time stipulated under the law. His further submission is that only on limited grounds as provided in Section 54 (10) of the CGST Act, the refund could be withheld and under no other circumstances.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there are serious allegations of production of fake invoices. He submits that two show cause notices have been issued to the petitioner, one has been issued on 17.07.2023 under Section 74 of the CGST Act by the DGGI, Gurugram. The other show cause notice has been issued on 11.03.2022 under Section 74 of the CGST Act by CGST Alwar Anti Evasion. He submits that because of the pendency of these proceedings, so far decision has not been taken and as and when proceedings are concluded