Facts of the Case

M/s Massilly India Packaging Pvt. Ltd., a company having its registered office at Bommaravettu, Muthoor Road, Hiriyadaka, Udupi, approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition No. 14720 of 2022 (T-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to consider the refund of CENVAT credit/input credit amounting to ₹27,87,954.41. The petitioner requested that the said amount be credited to its electronic ledger account maintained under the GST law or alternatively be refunded in cash, as prayed for in its representation dated 18 April 2022.

The petitioner also sought a direction requiring the respondents to pay interest at the prevailing rates on the delayed payment of the refund of CENVAT credit/input credit amounting to ₹27,87,954.41.

The principal grievance raised before the High Court was that the petitioner’s representation dated 18 April 2022, submitted to the respondents and placed on record as Annexure-C, had neither been considered nor decided by passing any order.

Consequently, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking appropriate directions against the respondents.

 Issues Involved

The principal issues arising in the matter were:

  1. Whether the respondents could leave the petitioner’s representation dated 18 April 2022 concerning refund of CENVAT credit/input credit of ₹27,87,954.41 undecided without passing an appropriate order.
  2. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for refund by crediting the amount to the electronic ledger account maintained under the GST law or by granting refund in cash.
  3. Whether the petitioner’s grievance concerning interest at the prevailing rates on delayed payment of the claimed refund required consideration by the competent respondents.
  4. Whether the High Court should prescribe a specific time limit within which the pending representation must be considered and decided in accordance with law.

 Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s case was that a representation dated 18 April 2022 had already been submitted to the respondents seeking refund of CENVAT credit/input credit amounting to ₹27,87,954.41.

The petitioner sought adjustment or credit of the said amount into its electronic ledger account maintained under the GST law or, alternatively, refund of the amount in cash.

It was further contended that despite submission of the representation, the respondents had not considered the petitioner’s request and had not passed any order upon it.

The petitioner therefore sought intervention of the High Court by way of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the refund claim.

The petitioner additionally sought interest at the prevailing rates on account of delayed payment of the claimed refund of CENVAT credit/input credit.

 Respondents’ Arguments

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted before the High Court that, if reasonable time were granted, the respondents would consider the petitioner’s representation and pass the necessary order thereon.

Thus, the respondents did not dispute before the Court that the representation could be taken up for consideration and appropriately decided within a reasonable period.

 Court Order / Findings

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents and after perusing the material on record, the High Court considered the petitioner’s grievance regarding non-disposal of its representation dated 18 April 2022.

The Court took note of the respondents’ submission that, if reasonable time were granted, the representation would be considered and a necessary order would be passed.

In view of the facts, circumstances and rival submissions, the High Court directed the respondents:

  • to address the grievances of the petitioner;
  • to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18 April 2022 at Annexure-C;
  • to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law; and
  • to complete the exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

 Important Clarification

The High Court did not directly sanction, quantify or order immediate payment of the refund amount of ₹27,87,954.41.

The Court also did not record a final adjudication declaring the petitioner substantively entitled to refund of the entire claimed CENVAT credit/input credit amount either through the electronic ledger under GST law or in cash.

Further, the order did not finally determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to interest at the prevailing rates on delayed payment of the claimed refund.

The specific operative direction was that the respondents must address the petitioner’s grievances, consider the representation dated 18 April 2022 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the significance of the ruling lies in the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction to ensure timely administrative consideration and disposal of a pending representation, rather than in a final adjudication granting the refund claim itself.

 Sections / Constitutional Provisions Involved

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — The writ petition was expressly filed under these constitutional provisions seeking a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus.

GST Law — Electronic Ledger Account — The relief sought included refund/credit of the claimed CENVAT credit/input credit amount into the petitioner’s electronic ledger account maintained under GST law or alternatively in cash.

CENVAT Credit / Input Credit Refund — The substantive grievance concerned a claim involving ₹27,87,954.41 towards CENVAT credit/input credit.

Important statutory clarification: The brief High Court order does not expressly identify any specific section number of the CGST Act, 2017, the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, or any other tax enactment as the statutory provision under which the refund was finally adjudicated. Therefore, no additional specific statutory section should be attributed to the judgment beyond what is expressly recorded.

 Related Case Law in Detail

1. M/s Filterco & Another vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh & Another

The Supreme Court has recognised the role of writ jurisdiction where a statutory authority fails to properly exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. The principle is relevant to cases involving administrative inaction or failure to determine a claim requiring lawful consideration.

Relevance to the present case: The Massilly India Packaging matter concerns non-consideration of a pending representation. The Karnataka High Court therefore directed the respondents to take up the grievance and pass an appropriate order within a defined period.

2. Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others

The Supreme Court explained that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction in recognised circumstances, including cases concerning enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice or proceedings wholly without jurisdiction.

Relevance to the present case: Although the Massilly India Packaging order is brief and does not undertake a detailed alternative-remedy analysis, the case demonstrates the High Court’s supervisory intervention where the immediate grievance was that a representation remained undecided.

3. Radha Krishan Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others

The Supreme Court restated principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where statutory remedies may otherwise exist and clarified recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy.

Relevance to the present case: This authority provides broader jurisprudential context concerning the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction in tax matters. However, the Massilly India Packaging order itself was specifically confined to directing consideration of the pending representation.

4. Union of India vs Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited

The Supreme Court has emphasised that courts exercising writ jurisdiction must act within the framework of law and cannot direct statutory authorities to act contrary to governing statutory provisions.

Relevance to the present case: The Karnataka High Court carefully directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order “in accordance with law,” rather than directly granting the claimed refund without statutory examination.

5. Suganmal vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

The Supreme Court considered the scope of writ jurisdiction in matters involving claims for refund of tax and explained limitations surrounding a bare writ petition seeking recovery of money.

Relevance to the present case: The distinction is important because the Karnataka High Court did not directly order payment of the claimed ₹27.88 lakh refund. Instead, it required the respondents to consider the pending representation and decide it in accordance with law.

 Professional Case Summary

The Karnataka High Court, in M/s Massilly India Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Central Tax (GST) & Union of India, dealt with a grievance concerning non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation seeking refund of CENVAT credit/input credit of ₹27,87,954.41 either through the electronic ledger account maintained under GST law or in cash, together with interest on delayed payment.

Taking note of the respondents’ submission that the representation would be considered if reasonable time were granted, the Court directed the respondents to address the petitioner’s grievances, consider the representation dated 18 April 2022 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the Court’s order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. Significantly, the High Court did not itself grant the refund or finally adjudicate entitlement to interest; it mandated timely consideration and lawful disposal of the pending representation.

Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783669615_3057.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.