District: HOWRAH

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

W.P.A. No. of 2023

In the matter of:
An application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India;
-And-
In the matter of:
M/S Mangal Steel Enterprises Limited , а
company within the meaning of the
Companies Act, 2013 and having its
registered office at 248, G.T. Road (N),
Salkia, Howrah, West Bengal-711106;.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, service through the
Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Government of
India, having its office at North Block, New
Delhi-110001, service through the
additional Government Counsel, Ministry
of Law and Justice, 11 Strand Road,
Kolkata, West Bengal-700001.

2. The Goods and Service Tax Council,

through the Special Secretary, working for
gain at LIC Building, Jeevan Bharti,
J6H9+R8V, Janpath, Connaught Place,
New Delhi, Delhi 110001.
 3. Commissioner of Central Goods and
Service Tax, Howrah, working for gain at
Road, M.S. Building, 15/1,
Strand Kolkata-700001;

4. Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE,

(Appeal-II) Commissionerate, Kolkata,
working for gain at 169, A.J.C. Bose Road,
Bamboo Villa, Kolkata, West Bengal-
700014;

5. Assistant Commissioner, Central

Division, Bally-II Division, Howrah, CGST
Commissionerate, working for gain at 5,
Clive Row Kolkata, West Bengal-700001;

6. Superintendent of CGST & CE,

(Appeal-II) Commissionerate, Kolkata,
working for gain at 169, A.J.C. Bose Road,
Bamboo Villa, 3rd floor, Kolkata, West
Bengal- 700014;

… Respondents
To
The Hon'ble T. S. SIVAGNANAM Chief Justice and His Companion Justices
of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition on behalf of the

petitioners above named most
respectfully-
SHEWETH:
1. Your petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 and is duly listed on the Calcutta Stock Exchange.
 petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of, inter-alia,
various goods including HDG Tensions Bar, Galvanized Mild Steel
Full Thread Rods etc. which fall under Chapter 73 of the GST Tariff.
The petitioner is duly registered under the Goods and Service Tax
regime and pays its taxes as and when the same fall due. The
petitioner is aggrieved by the acts and actions of the Respondent
authorities and having no other appropriate and/or alternative
remedy, is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court in the facts
and circumstances which are morefully described herein below.

2. The Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and is represented

through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
The Respondent No. 2 is the Goods and Service Tax Council which
the governing body for GST implementation in the Country. The
said Respondent is represented through the Special Secretary of
the Council. The Respondent No. 3 is the senior most officer
heading the charge of Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise in
the Bally-II, Division within which the petitioner falls. The
Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6are the officers under the Goods and
Service Tax regime who report to the Respondent No. 3. The said
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are authorities under the Respondent No.
1. The Respondents are "State" within the meaning Article 12 of
the Constitution of India and as such are amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

3. The instant issue in the present dispute relates to the period 01 st

March, 2022 to 31st March, 2022. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
rejection of a refund claim submitted by the petitioner to the
respondent authorities and is constrained to approach this Hon'ble
Court instead of filing further appeal since the Appellate Forum, as
enumerated in Section of Act, is not functional till date and as such,
the petitioner has no other alternative and efficacious remedy than
 the present proceedings without which the violation of fundamental
rights of the petitioner cannot be redressed.

4. Your petitioner states that for the period in issue, your petitioner
had submitted the claim for refund in the prescribed format, being
RFD 01 in the GST portal, for the following sum :-

Period Refund Claimed

i) March, 2022 - Rs. 1,66,08,025.00

Total :Rs. 1,66,08,025.00

5. Upon scrutiny of the aforesaid applications made by the writ refund

no. 5 had duly issued sanction/rejection orders in the form of GSD-
RFD-06 and the petitioner, the respondent following amounts were
sanctioned for refund :-

Period Refund Sanctioned

i) March, 2022 - Rs. 1,44,69,570.00

Total :Rs. 1,44,69,570.00

Copies of the GST-RFD-06 issued by the respondent

no. 5 against the month of March, 2022 on 13th June, 2022, 01st
March, 2022 to 31st March, 2022 are annexed hereto and
collectively marked as Annexure "P-1". Accordingly, the petitioner
had received the excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) lying with the
respondent authorities.

6. Subsequently, the office of the respondent no. 5 had issued a

notice
dated 04th May, 2022 whereby the respondent no. 5 had alleged
that the refund sanctioned against the aforesaid periods were
erroneous and that the refund claimed had to be calculated on the
lower of the two values declared in the invoices, being the value of
goods and the value declared in the shipping bills. Accordingly, the
respondent no. 5 had claimed an excess refund of Rs. 1,66,08,025/-
which the petitioner was directed to refund. A copy of such notice
dated 04th May, 2022 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure
"P-2".
7. Your petitioner immediately filed a reply to the said notice on the
very same day wherein the petitioner stated the gist of the
disputes with regard to the refund as claimed by the petitioner. The
petitioner had stated therein that the refund was required to be
calculated on the taxable value of export and not on the Freight on
Board (FOB) value of goods. It was also stated therein that the
shipments as sought to be exported by the petitioner were shipped
both on Freight on Board (FOB) as well as the Cost, Insurance and
Freight (CIF) basis. The taxable value of exports have been duly
stated in both table 6A of GSTR-1 and in table 3.1(b) of GSTR-3B. It
was categorically explained that the FOB value of the export would
match the value as derived from ICEGATE'S website whereas in CIF
shipments the value would differ, since the value as would be
reflected from ICEGATE's Shipping Bills Export General Manifest
(EGM) copy which would be the FOB value which could not match
the CIF shipment value. There is no option in the system to
bifurcate the CIF or the FOB value of exports and it is only the
taxable value of export which is mentioned. It was further stated
therein that the GST when paid is always calculated on
the taxable value of exports and not the FOB or the CIF value of
such exports. The formula for calculation of refund as set out under
Rule 89(4) of the GST Rules was also set out in the said reply by
the petitioner. The petitioner further stated therein that the
turnover of zero rated supply of goods means that the value of
such goods made during the relevant period in respect of which
refund is claimed under Rule 89 of the GST Rules would mean the
taxable value of the export and not the FOB value of such exports.
Copy of the letter in reply dated 27th January, 2021 is annexed
hereto and marked as Annexure "P-3".

8. Subsequently the office of the respondent no. 5 issued a show

cause notice cum demand dated 19th April, 2021 on the same lines
as of 19th January, 2021 and further alleged that even in case of CIF
shipment, the FOB value would be taken in case of refund of GST
and that the entry of the CIF values are erroneous in view of
paragraph 9.1 of the circular no. 37/11/2018-GST dated 13th June,
2022 and as such, an amount of Rs. 1,66,08,025/- has been
refunded in excess. A copy of the show cause notice cum demand
dated 19th April, 2021 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure
"P-4".

9. The petitioner had duly replied to such aforesaid show cause notice
cum demand dated 19th April, 2021 by way of a letter dated 30th
April, 2021 and stated therein that the refund ought to have been
processed on the taxable value of the goods since there would
always be a difference in the invoice value of the goods and the
shipping bills in case of CIF shipment. Further the reference to the
circular no.ZP1906220217153 13th June, 2022 which refers to the
verification of the EGM from the customs site in order to verify the
 genuineness of the export only. However, the respondent authority
has interpreted such circular in a manner to benefit themselves
and had wrongly alleged that only the FOB value of the export has
to be taken into consideration only and not the transactional value.
A copy of the letter dated 30th April, 2021 is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure "P-5".

10. Your petitioner states that a personal hearing was given to

the petitioner by the respondent authorities wherein the petitioner
had made oral submissions and had also submitted a written
version of the submissions made in the course of such hearing
before the Written submission was submitted by the respondent
No. 5. petitioner in the court of hearing on 13th September, 2022.

11. On 13th June, 2022 the said respondent no. 5 passed an

order of confirmation of the demand issued sub section(2) Section
107 of CGST Act, 2017 in Form: GST DRC-07 whereby the earlier
demand of Rs. 15,66,798/- was confirmed and further imposed
interest and penalty on the amount of such erroneous refund. A
copy of the said order dated 13th June, 2022 is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure "P-6".

12. Your petitioner being aggrieved with the said order preferred
an appeal therefrom before the Respondent No. 5 being Assistant
Commissioner of Central Division, Bally-II Division, Howrah, CGST
Commissionerate on 09th December, 2022 against the order
rejecting a sum of Rs. 1,44,69,570/- to which the petitioner was
and/or is entitled. The petitioner reiterated its stand in the said
appeal and stated its case in details while praying that the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bally-II being
the Respondent No. 5 herein should be set aside and the refund as
claimed by the petitioner should be sanctioned in favour of the
petitioner. A copy of the said appeal as filed by the petitioner on
09th December, 2022 before the Commissioner of Central Division,
Bally-II Division, Howrah, CGST Commissionerate being the
Appellate Authority in the proceeding is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure "P-7".

13. Such further appeal had to be filed along with the pre-deposit
of 10% of the entire deposited amount of Rs. 15,66,798/-. A copy of
the payment receipt as well as the form no. GST DRC-03 issued on
25th January, 2022 are annexed here and collectively marked as
Annexure "P-8".

14. Your petitioner states that the office of the respondent no. 6
had thereafter issued an intimation thereby fixing the personal
hearing on 23rd November, 2022 at 3.00 PM which was duly
attended to by the petitioner. At the time of such personal hearing,
a written submission was made on behalf of the petitioner by the
 consultant Mr. Swapan Kumar Dey at the time of personal hearing
on 23rd November, 2022, copy whereof is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure "P-9".

15. Your petitioner was shocked and bewildered to receive an

order dated 23rd March, 2023 from the appellate authority in form
GST APL-04 under Rule 113(1) CGST Rule, 2017 whereby the
appeal was rejected and the amount of demand was confirmed.
The appellate order which is impugned before this Hon'ble Court is
bad in law and has been passed without considering the various
facts and circumstances involved in the case. A copy of the
impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure "P-10".

16. Your petitioner states that the acts and action of the
Respondent authorities in failing to consider the various
submissions made by the petitioner are bad in law. The petitioner
has tried to explain why there could not be a mismatch between
the shipping bills and the export invoice numbers and that the
refund should be calculated on the taxable value of the export and
the difficulties faced by the petitioner for the policy decisions by
the respondent authorities which are erroneous and should be
immediately rectified. The said impugned order should be set aside
and the entire sum of refund to which the petitioner is eligible
amounting to Rs. 15,66,798/- should be allowed for the period in
issue along with appropriate directions for taking steps to redress
the difficulties faced by the petitioner due to the technical glitches
in the portal and/or website of the respondent authorities.

17. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the acts and actions of the respondent
authorities in passing the order impugned herein dated 23rd
March, 2023 and the inaction of the authorities in considering the
various submissions of the petitioner are bad in law in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.

18. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the petitioner is entitled to the entire refund
of Rs. 15,66,798/- for the period in issue and the notice of rejection
as issued by the respondent authorities of the application for
refund is erroneous and in violation of the fundamental rights of
the petitioner.

19. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the notice for rejection of application for
refund dated 19th January, 2021 states an amount of Rs.
15,66,798/- as the amount which is inadmissible without any
explanation as to how the said amount was arrived at by the
respondent authorities.
20. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have
failed to consider that the shipments which are exported by the
petitioner are done both through FOB and/or CIF methods.

21. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the value of exports under the FOB method
would match the figures which are derived from ICEGATE's website
which displays only the FOB value of the shipment and not the
taxable value of the shipment but the shipments which are made
through CIF method would not match the ICEGATE's shipping bills'
EGM copy which carries the FOB value and there is no method in
the system to update the value of the CIF shipments for which the
petitioner cannot be held responsible in any manner.

22. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the value of export as stated in the returns
and that as claimed in the refund applications are taxable value of
exports as the system does not permit any bifurcation between the
exports made through CIF or FOB methods.

23. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the refund to which the petitioner is eligible
should be calculated on the taxable value of exports and not on the
FOB value of the exports which is also affirmed by the provisions
under rule 89(4) of the GST rules.

24. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the turnover zero rated supply of goods
would mean the "taxable value" of supply of such goods made
during the period in issue in respect of which refund is claimed
under rule 89(4A) or (4B) of the Rules.

25. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the refund as claimed by the petitioner, is
required to be calculated on the taxable value of export and not on
the FOB value or CIF value of exports and as such there can be no
question of mismatch when the taxable value of export is
considered as the bench mark.

26. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the application for refund as is required to be
made on the GST portal requires the applicant to validate the value
of the exports as recorded in the shipping bills and in terms of what
has been updated in GSTR-1 for the month in issue and if any value
be it FOB or otherwise, is uploaded instead of the taxable value
mentioned in the shipping bills, the system would not validate the
same from the GSTR-1 and as such the applicant would never be
able to apply for refund to begin with.
27. Your petitioner states that the defects in the GST portal
and/or website cannot be cured by any appellate forum and as
such the only remedy which lies with the petitioner to approach
this Hon'ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

28. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that although the department requires
calculation of refund based on FOB value of the exports but the
technical defects in the portal would not permit such application to
be uploaded and as such, the applicant is bound to apply for refund
based on shipment without considering whether the shipment is
FOB or CIF based and as such the petitioner and/or the applicant
cannot be held responsible for any mismatch thereto which is to be
noted and rectified by the respondent authorities upon direction
from this Hon'ble Court.

29. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the respondent No. 1 through circular No.
125/44/219- GST dated September 18, 2019 has stated at
paragraph 47 thereof that 'transaction value' as would be
determined under section 15 of CGST Act should be recorded in the
invoices and the corresponding shipping bills and as such, the
same is reflected by the applicant in GSTR-1 while claiming the
refund for which the applicant cannot be responsible in any
manner.

30. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that section 15(2)(c) of the CGST Act provides
that the 'transaction value' would include incidental expenses
including
commission and packing as charged by supplier to the recipient of
the goods and any sum charged by the supplier in respect of
supply of goods or services would be included in the said
transaction value. A copy of the said circular No. 125/44/219-GST
dated September 18, 2019 is annexed hereto and is marked with
the letter "P-11".

31. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that in case of supplies where export is made on
CIF basis, the CIF value is recorded both in the GST invoice and the
corresponding shipping bills and the invoice value is recorded in
every shipping bill which concludes that there is no difference in
the value declared in the invoice of the shipping bills and as such
for the purpose of refund, the CIF value should be considered by
the authorities.

32. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider the formats of the applications which are
 required to be updated online while praying for refund, a perusal
whereof makes it abundantly clear that the shipment value which
gets validated is CIF value and not the FOB value and as such it is
on such transactional value that the refund calculation is required
to be made by the authorities. Copies of the said formats are
annexed hereto and are collectively marked with the letter "P-12".

33. Your petitioner states that further and in any events and
without prejudice to the aforesaid, if the allegation of the
authorities are considered as true, while denying and disputing the
same, the FOB value of the zero rated supply is required to be
taken into account at Rs.-------------/-. The net Input Tax Credit (ITC)
as available would be a sum of Rs.-----------/- and as such the
eligible refund would amount of Rs.-----------/- which would mean
that a sum of Rs.--------------/- could be refused but not a sum of
Rs.-----------/- as rejected by the notice and the impugned
order dated 23rd March 2023. A tabulated chart representing the
details of the export with the invoice number and the taxable value
and/or FOB value for ease of reference is annexed hereto and is
marked with the letter "P-13".

34. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to consider that the invoices reported against the shipment
would definitely match since the petitioner has submitted both the
GST invoice or bill of supply which contains the details and the
shipping bills along with the container number and as such there
can be no difference or any mismatch as claimed by the
respondent authorities in the order impugned.

35. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities could

cross check the GSTR-1 returns to verify whether export invoices
and the values stated therein of the exports have been correctly
reported by the petitioner in the facts of the instant case.

36. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

acted in excess and without jurisdiction and contrary to the statute.

37. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

failed to take into consideration the relevant materials on record
while arriving at the order impugned.

38. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

taken into consideration irrelevant materials and have proceeded
with complete non-application of mind.

39. Your petitioner states that the Respondent authorities have

acted in an arbitrary manner and in a manner in which no
reasonable person would have acted in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.
40. Your petitioner states that the acts and actions of the
respondent authorities have violated the fundamental rights of the
petitioner specially those enshrined under Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.

41. Being aggrieved by the action and/or inaction of the

Respondent authorities in issuing the impugned order dated 23rd
March 2023 and in failing to consider the requests made by the
petitioner, which are bad in law in the facts and circumstances of
the case and are liable to be rescinded, set aside and/or quashed
and/or acted upon, the petitioner, inter-alia, is preferring the
instant petition on the following amongst other:-

GROUNDS

I) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the acts and actions of the respondent authorities in
passing the order impugned herein dated 23rd March 2023 and
the inaction of the authorities in considering the various
submissions of the petitioner are bad in law in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.

II) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the petitioner is entitled to the entire refund of Rs.
15,66,798/- for the period in issue and the notice of rejection
as issued by the respondent authorities of the application for
refund is erroneous and in violation of the fundamental rights
of the petitioner.

III) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the notice for rejection of application for refund dated 19th
January, 2021 states an amount of Rs. 15,66,798/- as the
amount which is inadmissible without any explanation as to
how the said amount was arrived at by the respondent
authorities.

IV) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the shipments which are exported by the petitioner are
done both through FOB and/or CIF methods.

V) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the value of exports under the FOB method would match
the figures which are derived from ICEGATE's website which
displays only the FOB value of the shipment and not the taxable
value of the shipment but the shipments which are
made through CIF method would not match the ICEGATE's
shipping bills' EGM copy which carries the FOB value and
there is no method in the system to update the value of the CIF
 shipments for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible
in any manner.

VI) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the value of export as stated in the returns and that as
claimed in the refund applications are taxable value of exports
as the system does not permit any bifurcation between the
exports made through CIF or FOB methods.

VII) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the refund to which the petitioner is eligible should be
calculated on the taxable value of exports and not on the FOB
value of the exports which is also affirmed by the provisions
under rule 89(4) of the GST rules.

VIII) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the turnover zero rated supply of goods would mean the
"taxable value" of supply of such goods made during the period
in issue in respect of which refund is claimed under rule
89(4A) or (4B) of the Rules.

IX) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the refund as claimed by the petitioner, is required to be
calculated on the taxable value of export and not on the FOB
value or CIF value of exports and as such there can be no
question of mismatch when the taxable value of export is
considered as the bench mark.

X) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the application for refund as is required to be made on the
GST portal requires the applicant to validate the value of the
exports as recorded in the shipping bills and in terms of what
has been updated in GSTR-1 for the month in issue and if any
value be it FOB or otherwise, is uploaded instead of the taxable
value mentioned in the shipping bills, the system would not
validate the same from the GSTR-1 and as such the applicant
would never be able to apply for refund to begin with.

XI) FOR THAT the defects in the GST portal and/or website cannot
be cured by any appellate forum and as such the only remedy
which lies with the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court
for appropriate reliefs.

XII) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that although the department requires calculation of refund
based on FOB value of the exports but the technical defects in
the portal would not permit such application to be uploaded
and as such, the applicant is bound to apply for refund based
on shipment without considering whether the shipment is FOB
 or CIF based and as such the petitioner and/or the applicant
cannot be held responsible for any mismatch thereto which is
to be noted and rectified by the respondent authorities upon
direction from this Hon'ble Court.

XIII) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the respondent No. 1 through circular No. 125/44/219-
GST dated September 18, 2019 has stated at paragraph 47
thereof that 'transaction value' as would be determined under
section 15 of CGST Act should be recorded in the invoices and
the corresponding shipping bills and as such, the same is
reflected by the applicant in GSTR-1 while claiming the refund
for which the applicant cannot be responsible in any manner.

XIV) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that section 15(2)(c) of the CGST Act provides that the
'transaction value' would include incidental expenses including
commission and packing as charged by supplier to the
recipient of the goods and any sum charged by the supplier in
respect of supply of goods or services would be included in the
said transaction value.

XV) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that in case of supplies where export is made on CIF basis, the
CIF value is recorded both in the GST invoice and the
corresponding shipping bills and the invoice value is recorded
in every shipping bill which concludes that there is no
difference in the value declared in the invoice of the shipping
bills and as such for the purpose of refund, the CIF value
should be considered by the authorities.

XVI) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

the formats of the applications which are required to be updated
online while praying for refund, a perusal whereof
makes it abundantly clear that the shipment value which gets
validated is the CIF value and not the FOB value and as such
it is on such transactional value that the refund calculation is
required to be made by the authorities.

XVII) FOR THAT further and in any events and without prejudice to
the aforesaid, if the allegation of the authorities are considered
as true, while denying and disputing the same, the FOB value
of the zero rated supply is required to be taken into account at
Rs.---------/-The net Input Tax Credit (ITC) as
available would be a sum of Rs.----------/- the eligible refund
would amount to Rs.------------------/-which would mean that a sum
of Rs.----------------/- be refused but not a sum of
Rs.---------------------/- by the notice nor a sum of
 Rs.------------------------/- the impugned order dated 23rd March
2023.

XVIII) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have chosen to

disregard the business practice in exports whereby the
shipping bills are processed with customs by using of proforma
invoice number which is not the final invoice but is similar to it
in all respects.

XIX) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the shipping bill number which is mentioned in the
proforma invoice would settle the issue if the reference is
accounted for by the respondent authorities who have chosen
to disregard the same while comparing it with the actual
invoice being the bill of supply.

XX) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to consider

that the invoices reported against the shipment would
definitely match since the petitioner has submitted both the
GST invoice or bill of supply which contains the details as
mentioned in the proforma invoice and the shipping bills along
with the container number and as such there can be no
difference or any mismatch as claimed by the respondent
authorities in the cross appeal as well as in the order
impugned by the respondent authorities.

XXI) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities could cross check the
GSTR-1 returns to verify whether export invoices and the
values stated therein of the exports have been correctly
reported by the petitioner in the facts of the instant case.

XXII) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have acted in excess

and without jurisdiction and contrary to the statute.

XXIII) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have failed to take into
consideration the relevant materials on record while arriving at
the order impugned.

XXIV) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have taken into

consideration irrelevant materials and have proceeded with
complete non-application of mind.

XXV) FOR THAT the Respondent authorities have acted in an

arbitrary manner and in a manner in which no reasonable
person would have acted in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case.

XXVI) FOR THAT the acts and actions of the respondent authorities
have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner specially
 those enshrined under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.

41. Your petitioner states that no demand of justice could redress

the grievance of the petitioner since the respondent authorities do not
have the power to direct for appropriate steps to be incorporated in
the
procedural norms to redress the grievance of the petitioner as stated
hereinabove and only this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction for issuing
high prerogative writs whereby the grievance of the petitioner can be
Any representation would be an idle and
appropriately addressed. empty formality.

42. Your petitioner states that this Hon'ble Court has the
jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition and the instant petition is
the only appropriate and efficacious remedy available with the
petitioner since a further appeal from the impugned order before the
statutory Appellate Authority could not render appropriate reliefs
since the Appellate Authority under the statute does not have power
to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant
proceeding which includes appropriate steps to be taken by the
respondent authorities to redress the technical glitches in the GST
website wherein only taxable value of exports are allowed to be
updated and there is no option for updating
the FOB value of exports or the CIF value of exports separately which
is bound to create mismatches while claiming refund as claimed by
the petitioner.

43. Your petitioner has no other adequate and/or alternative

and/or efficacious remedy and the reliefs sought for herein if granted
would afford complete redress to your petitioner.

44. The records relating to the case are lying with the
respondent number six (6) at its office, within the jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court.

45. Your petitioner states that impugned illegal actions of the

respondents have imposed an extremely heavy burden on your
petitioner and have adversely affected its business. The balance of
convenience is in favour of your petitioner.

46. Your petitioner has not filed any other application before this
Hon'ble Court or in any other Court relating to the instant cause of
action.

47. Unless orders as prayed for are made, your petitioner will
suffer grave and irreparable loss, harm and injury.
48. This application is made bona fide and in the interest of
justice.

In the circumstances aforesaid, your

petitioner most humbly prays Your
Lordships for:-

(a) A writ of and/or order and/or

direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the
Respondent no.2 to take
immediate and appropriate
measures to rectify the technical
glitch in the
GST portal whereby an applicant
claiming for refund should be
permitted to update the FOB
value of exports and the CIF value
of exports and not limit the same
to the taxable value of exports
since the department directs
assesses
to calculate the GST refund based
on FOB value of exports but the
website would accept only
applications for refund based on
taxable value of shipment
irrespective of the FOB or CIF value
of such shipment;
(b) A writ of and/or order and/or
direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the
Respondent authorities to consider
 the taxable value of exports in case
of refund claimed by an
assesse and not the FOB or the CIF
value thereof which would render a
mismatch for
which the applicant can be held
responsible in any manner;

(c) A writ of and/or order and/or

direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the
Respondent authorities to quash
the order impugned dated
23rd March 2023 passed by the
Joint Commissioner, Appeals,
Kolkata Appeal-II
being the respondent No. 4 herein
and to act in accordance with law;

(d)A writ of and/or order and/or

direction in the nature of
Prohibition restraining the
Respondent authorities and/or their
agents and/or workmen from
proceeding with the impugned
order dated 23rd March 2023 and
to act in accordance with law;

(e) A writ of and/or order and/or

direction in the nature of Certiorari
commanding the Respondents to
certify and transmit the
 records relating to the impugned
order dated May 20, 2022 so that
the same may be quashed and/or
set aside and conscionable
justice might be rendered;

(f) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a),

(b), (c), (d) and (e) above;

(g)Direction upon the Respondent

authorities to take cognizance of
the immediate and appropriate
measures to rectify the technical
glitch in the GST portal whereby an
applicant claiming for refund
should be permitted to update the
FOB value of exports and the CIF
value of exports and not limit the
same to the taxable value of
exports since the department
directs assesses to calculate the
GST refund. based on FOB value of
exports but the website
would accept only applications for
refund based on taxable value of
shipment irrespective of the FOB or
CIF value of such shipment;

(h)Direction upon the Respondent

authorities to take cognizance of
the taxable value of exports
in case of refund claimed by an
assesse and not the FOB or the CIF
value thereof which would render a
 mismatch for which the
applicant can be held responsible
in any manner;

(i) Direction upon the Respondent

authorities to take cognizance of
the order impugned dated
May 20, 2022 passed by the Joint
Commissioner, Appeals, Kolkata
Appeal-II being the respondent No.
3 herein and to act in accordance
with law;

(j) Injunction restraining the

Respondent authorities and/or their
agents and/or workmen from
acting in terms of the
impugned order dated May 20,
2022 and to act in accordance with
law;

(k) Ad-interim orders in terms of

prayers above;

(l) Costs of and incidental to this

application be paid by the
Respondents;

(m) Such further or other order or

orders be made and/or directions
be given as would afford
complete relief to your petitioner.
And for this act of kindness, your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever
pray.