9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1242 - HC - GSTRefund of GST paid under RCM on ocean freight - Constitutional validity of Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 - vires of Section 5(3) of the IGST Act as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - This Court vide judgement and order passed in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT declared the Entry No.10 of the Notification No.10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as ultra vires Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the Notification has been struck down as ultra vires, as a consequence of the same, the writ applicant seeks refund of the amount paid towards the IGST. However, for this purpose, the writ applicant will have to prefer an appropriate application addressed to the competent authority. Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as ultra vires Section 5(3) of the IGST Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Claim for refund of IGST already paid pursuant to the impugned Entry No.10. 3. Request for restraining coercive steps by the respondents pending notice, admission, and final hearing. 4. Seeking ex parte ad interim relief. 5. Application for refund of IGST amount paid on ocean freight. Analysis: 1. The writ applicant challenged Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST(Rate) as ultra vires Section 5(3) of the IGST Act and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court referred to a previous judgment where a similar entry was declared unconstitutional. The Court quoted relevant paras from the judgment and declared the impugned notifications as lacking legislative competency and unconstitutional. The principal relief sought in the present writ application was granted based on the previous decision. 2. The petitioner sought a refund of the IGST amount already paid in compliance with the impugned Entry No.10. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the amount deposited and the entitlement to a refund following the striking down of the Notification. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a refund application. The authority was instructed to process the refund without raising technical issues within four weeks of receiving the writ order. 3. In addition to the refund claim, the petitioner requested the Court to restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps pending further proceedings. However, the Court did not address this specific request in the judgment, as the main relief of refund was already granted. 4. The petitioner also sought ex parte ad interim relief, but the judgment did not mention any specific decision or order related to this request. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Court did not find it necessary to grant such relief based on the information provided in the judgment. 5. The petitioner presented a statement showing the IGST paid on ocean freight and expressed concerns about the authority's ability to process the refund. The Court clarified that the refund process should be initiated by the petitioner through an appropriate application to the competent authority. The Court emphasized that the authority should promptly review the refund claim without raising technical objections, in line with the Court's decision in a related case. In conclusion, the Court granted the principal relief sought by the petitioner regarding the challenge to the impugned notification and directed the petitioner to pursue the refund claim through the proper channels. The judgment provided a clear roadmap for the refund process, emphasizing the authority's obligation to process the refund without delay or technical hindrances.
|
