Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017—Refund —— The petitioner challenged order dated 13.08.2020, 10.09.2020 and 13.11.2020, rejecting the refund claim. Further sought to quash Order dated 10.06.2020 returning the application filed manually claiming supplementary refund of unutilized ITC pertaining to Compensatory Cess on inputs used in relation to zero-rated supplies. The petitioner upon payment of Compensation Cess on the procurement of coal for use as input, sought for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of IGST Act. The said refund was allowed by the authority concerned, when it computed unit-wise quantum of refund for the said period(s), it was found that the quantum of refund as allowed by taking into consideration all the units together was much less and, therefore, the petitioner manually applied for grant of supplementary refund. The court observed that the petitioner did not choose to avail the opportunity of personal hearing as instructed in the aforesaid notice/intimation, but challenged the same by way of writ petition. The petitioner is not deprived of availing alternative remedy to question the legality of decision taken by the respondent. They do not find any merit in the nature of challenge made in the writ petitions and declines to read down Rule 89(4) of the Rules.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition and held that Rule 89(4) is intra vires and said rule being framed in conformity with the powers conferred on the Government under Section 164. There is no scope for the petitioner-company to insist on consideration of supplementary refund application based on fresh calculation made by taking into account transactions of individual unitwise.