Shiv Overseas Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition filed by M/S Shiv Overseas, which claimed to be an exporter and sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to forthwith transmit its withheld Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund. The Petitioner submitted that it had exported goods on payment of IGST during the period from 01.02.2022 to 19.03.2023 under nine shipping bills, but the refund continued to be withheld because alerts had been inserted against its Import Export Code (IEC). It was further submitted that the authorities had certified, through orders dated 08.05.2026 and 12.05.2026, that no investigation was pending against the Petitioner. On behalf of the Respondents, it was submitted that two separate alerts had been raised and that an alert raised by the Director General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) on 12.01.2023 was still pending. The Respondents nevertheless submitted that the issue would be resolved positively within one week. The Court noted that the Petitioner’s refund had remained pending for more than three and a half years. As a last opportunity, the Court directed the Competent Authority to take a final decision within one week from the date of the order. The Court further directed that, if the decision was not taken within that period, the salary of the Director General of Analytics and Risk Management would not be released until a final decision was taken in the matter. With these observations, the writ petition along with the pending applications was disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner, who claims to be an Exporter, prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to forthwith transmit the Petitioner’s withheld Integrated Goods and Services Tax [‘IGST’] refund.
2. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has exported goods on payment of IGST during the period from 01.02.2022 to 19.03.2023 under nine (09) shipping bills. However, the refund has continued to be withheld on account of alerts inserted against the Import Export Code [‘IEC’]. He further submits that the authorities have now certified that no investigation is pending against the Petitioner, vide orders dated 08.05.2026 and 12.05.2026.
3. Learned counsel representing the Respondent submits that, in fact, two separate alerts were raised and that the alert raised by the Director General of Analytics and Risk Management [‘DGARM’] on 12.01.2023 is still pending. However, he submits that the issue would be resolved positively within a period of one (01) week.
4. It is noticed that the Petitioner’s refund has been kept pending for more than three and a half (3½) years.
5. Hence, as a last opportunity, the Competent Authority is directed to take a final decision within a period of one (01) week from today. In the event the decision is not taken within the aforesaid period, the salary of the Director General of Analytics and Risk Management shall not be released until a final decision is taken in the matter.
6. With these observations, the present Writ Petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of.
