The court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not obstruct legitimate claims for refunds under the law.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.36504/2025, 36451/2025]

The petitioner is a company engaged in the exporting of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) products like tea, coffee, masala and curry powders to Dubai. As part of its business, during the month of June, 2024 to December, 2024, IGST refund for 14 export consignments were withheld by the GST Department based on the alert raised by the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) in the Customs system. Out of the said consignments, six refund applications were auto generated under Rule 96(5A) of the GST Rules, and were transmitted to the 3^rd respondent herein, who is the Jurisdictional Proper O verify the genuineness of the exporter. Ext.P1 is the said auto generated refund application in Form GST RFD-01.

2. However, as per Ext.P3, the same was rejected by the

3^rd respondent on the reason that, the application for refund of integrated tax paid on goods exported out of India under section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 cannot be filed under his jurisdiction and hence, the same cannot be considered. The said order was passed on 15.10.2024 and according to the petitioner, he was not aware of the rejection of the refund for the relevant period. Upon coming to know about the same, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the First Appellate Authority as evidenced by Ext.P5, but the same was rejected as per Ext.P9, on the reason that, the appeal was submitted beyond the condonable limits of the delay. It was in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P-3 and P-9 orders and quash the original of the same.

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P-5 appeal and pass orders afresh on merits within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to process the Ext P-1 refund claim strictly in accordance with Ext P-4 and to sanction refund order forthwith.

iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to refund the IGST paid on export of goods as per Ext P-1 along with interest forthwith. v. To declare that the petitioner company is eligible for refund of IGST paid on export of goods based on Ext P-1 auto-generated refund application under “Any other” (IGST paid on exports of goods).

vi. to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that, in the light of Ext.P4 instruction issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the 3^rd respondent ought not to have been rejected the refund application, which is auto generated. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, it was the 3^rd respondent who was supposed to entertain the same and consider the genuineness of the transactions and thereafter to process the same for effecting refund. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 was issued on a mistaken notion, on account of the lack of communication from DGARM in the Backend Portal of the GSTIN, and thus. without taking note of the fact that Ext.P1 was an auto generated refund application in respect of which, the system flagged it as risk, and transmitted the same to the 3^rd respondent for examining the genuineness, being the Jurisdictional Proper Officer to examine the genuineness of the transaction. It is pointed out that this is a fact that was omitted to be taken note of, by the 3^rd respondent, while considering the claim and this resulted in a