The services provided were not intermediary services but on a principal-to-principal basis, justifying the refund of unutilized input tax credit as the denial was arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the manner in which the Impugned Orders interpret Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules would render the Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules ultra vires the provisions of Section 2(6) and 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Impugned Order dated 29^th April 2022 and 29^th June 2022 passed by Respondents No.2 and 3 respectively (Annexure-A and B), are:

- without the authority of law, wholly without and/or in excess of jurisdiction,

- ultra vires the provisions of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, read with Sections 2(6) and 16 of the IGST Act,

- in breach of the principles of natural justice,

- in breach of Articles 14, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and hence, illegal, and bad in law.

(ba) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Impugned Demand Notice dated 15^th September 2022 (Annexure-S) and Impugned Recovery Notice dated 15^th September 2022 (Annexure-T) issued by Respondent No.3, are illegal, unsustainable in law, ultra vires the provisions of the GST laws, and non est in law;

(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is entitled to the refund of unutilized input tax credit to the tune of INR 22,49,60,792/- in relation to the services exported by the Petitioner during the F.Y. 2018-19 and F.Y. 2019-20.

(ca) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to call for the records of the present proceedings and quash and set aside the Impugned Demand Notice dated 15^th September 2022 (Annexure-S) and Impugned Recovery Notice dated 15^th September 2022 (Annexure-T) issued by Respondent No.3;”

(d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 29^th April 2022 bearing GST A.No.207- 208/2020-21 A-II (JC), OIA No.34-35/2022- 23/JC-AII/GST dated 29.04.2022 and DIN:2022045700000000A837 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure-A) and the Impugned Order dated 29^th June 2022 bearing DIN-20220657000000333D24, No.1647/2022 and OIO No.3/GST/2022-23 passed by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-B).

(e) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents No.2 to 5, either directly or through its officers, agents, or any representatives, not to take any further consequential or precipitative actions in respect of the Impugned Orders dated 29^th April 2022 and 29^th June 2022 passed by Respondent No.2 and 3 respectively.

(ea) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents No.2 to 5, either directly or through its officers, agents, or any representatives, not to take any further consequential or precipitative actions in respect of the Impugned Demand Notice dated 15^th September 2022 (Annexure-S) and Impugned Recovery Notice dated 15^th September 2022 (Annexure-T) issued by Respondent No.3;”

(f) for costs of this Petition and the Orders made thereon; and (g) Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASGI for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 05.02.2020, petitioner filed an application under RFD-01 for refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of export of services without payment of tax under Section 54(3)(i) of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018-19. The respondent having issued a show cause notice contending that the refund claim filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply along wi