9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1364 - HC - GSTSeeking refund of IGST wrongly paid on ocean freight - N/N. 8 of 2017 and 10 of 2017 both dated 28.6.2017 read with corrigendum dated 30.6.2017 - HELD THAT - This court in MOHIT MINERALS PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1 OTHER 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held the said notifications to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the statute. The decision has been followed in GOKUL AGRO RESOURCES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2020 (2) TMI 1242 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , BHARAT OMAN REFINERIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1 OTHER (S) 2020 (8) TMI 568 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . The decision of this Court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., came to be confirmed by the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA ANR. VERSUS M/S MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR 2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT . The above position and law emanating from the decision of this court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. could not be disputed by learned advocates for the respective parties. It may also be mentioned that similar issue came up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench in ADI ENTERPRISES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2022 (6) TMI 849 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , wherein the question was about refund of the IGST paid pursuant to the aforementioned Notifications. The court directed respondents to refund the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to Entry No.10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017. The claim for refund of the petitioner towards IGST is liable to be favourably considered. The competent authority of the respondents shall verify the amount of refund and grant such refund of the amount of IGST paid by the petitioner pursuant to the Entry No.10 of the above notification within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with the statutory rate of interest - the respondent authorities are directed to accept the physical copy of the fresh application from the petitioner and grant refund with interest. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of Notification Nos. 8/2017 and 10/2017 imposing additional IGST liability on transportation charges for imported goods. 2. Refund claim for IGST paid on ocean freight for specific periods. 3. Consideration of previous judgments declaring the notifications unconstitutional. 4. Direction for refund of IGST paid pursuant to the impugned notifications. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to quash deficiency memos and claimed a refund of IGST paid on ocean freight. The petitioner, engaged in trading major core commodities, incurred IGST and Customs liability on imported goods like coal and metals. The Revenue department imposed additional 5% IGST liability on transportation charges for imported goods, leading to the petitioner filing refund claims for specific periods. 2. The High Court considered the validity of Notification Nos. 8/2017 and 10/2017, which levied IGST on transportation services. Referring to previous judgments, including Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., the court held the notifications unconstitutional. The court also noted similar decisions in Gokul Agro Resources Ltd., Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd., and Comsol Energy Private Limited, confirming the unconstitutionality of the notifications. 3. Citing the decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., the court directed the authorities to refund the IGST paid by the petitioner. The court emphasized that the notifications were ultra vires, leading to the allowance of the petition and the favorable consideration of the refund claim. The competent authority was instructed to verify the refund amount and grant it along with statutory interest within a specified timeframe. 4. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, directing the respondent authorities to accept the fresh refund application and grant the refund with interest as per the specified directions. The judgment emphasized compliance with the previous rulings declaring the impugned notifications invalid and the obligation to refund the IGST paid in accordance with the law. This detailed analysis reflects the court's thorough consideration of the issues raised, the legal framework surrounding the notifications, and the precedent set by previous judgments, leading to the decision to allow the petition and grant the refund claim for IGST paid on ocean freight.
|
