THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.31870 of 2025

ORDER:

Learned counsel Ms. Y.Siri Reddy appears for the petitioner.

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:

“For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of a writ of mandamus to set aside the impugned Order-In-Appeal No. HYD-GST-RRC-APP1-203-23-24 dt.19.10.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the refund sanctioned to the petitioner and consequentially set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice No.04/2025-26- Adjn-(Supt)-GST dt.15.05.2025 issued along with Form GST DRC-01 dt.16.05.2025 vide Reference No. ZD360525019522J and the consequent Order-in-Original No.01/2025-26Adjn (Supdt)-Gachibowli-II Range dt.28.07.2025 issued along with Form GST DRC-07 dt.05.08.2025 vide Reference No.ZD360825005944 passed by the 1st respondent demanding the recovery of refund of input tax credit of Rs.19,97,669/- sanctioned to the petitioner against exports made by it during the financial year 2020-21 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/TGST/IGST Act, 2017 along with interest and penalty as being issued without any authentication by way of signature by the 1^st respondent and in violation of principles of natural justice without jurisdiction, without application of mind, arbitrarily, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and against the provisions of the CGST/TGST/IGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder, and pass any such order(s) deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. The petitioner seems to have preferred the writ petition only after the consequential order-in-original dated 28.07.2025 and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 05.08.2025 were issued for recovery of input tax credit of Rs.19,97,669/- sanctioned to the petitioner against the exports said to have been made during the financial year 2020-2021 along with interest and penalty.

4. By the impugned order-in-appeal, the refund sanction order dated 15.08.2022 was set aside. On being specifically asked, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the circular dated 24.09.2025 issued by the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby it is indicated that for preferring an appeal against the orders of the appellate authorities or revisional authorities issued on the common portal on or after 01.03.2023 but on or before 31.01.2024, the portal would accept filing after the period commencing on 01.12.2025 and ending on 31.12.2025 or any date succeeding such date being not later than 30.06.2026. It is submitted that in the absence of constitution of the Goods and Services Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, “the GST Tribunal”) for so long, the petitioner did not have an adequate remedy of appeal. Therefore, it has preferred the present writ petition. It is submitted that if the petitioner is relegated to the remedy before the GST Tribunal and also before the Appellate Tribunal against the consequential order-in-original, two parallel proceedings would operate. Therefore, this Court may entertain the writ petition, as it is not barred by delay. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that even if the first contention of the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner has no justification for approaching this Court against the order-in-appeal cancelling refund sanction order passed on 19.10.2023 itself. It is submitted that in the scheme of things devised by the GST Appellate Tribunal, the filing of appeals against the orders of this particular period would commence from 01.12.2025 and therefore, the petitioner is not barred by delay in approaching the appellate forum. He also submits