2020 (7) TMI 287 - HC - GST

Inaction on the part of the respondents of not disbursing the refund amount was owing to the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the petitioner has succeeded in appeal vide order dated 23rd July, 2019. Though nearly a year has passed, yet no proceeding has been filed challenging the said order till date. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be asked to wait endlessly for the respondents to challenge the order dated 23rd July, 2019. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 23rd July, 2019 within four weeks. During this period, it shall be open to the respondents to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties including objection, if any, to the maintainability of such proceedings are left open.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of IGST amount along with interest, withholding of refund, compliance with provisions of IGST Act and CGST Act, nature of services exported, failure to challenge appellate order, direction for refund, permission to file appropriate proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of a specific amount due to them along with interest, under the IGST Act and Delhi Goods and Services Act, related to zero-rated supplies in GST. The withholding of the refund was alleged to be in violation of relevant sections of the IGST Act and CGST Act. The Court issued notice to the respondents, who explained the delay in disbursing the refund due to the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal and indicated their intent to challenge the appellate order. They also raised concerns about the lack of clear description of the exported services and non-submission of required documents by the petitioner.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had not provided a clear description of the services exported, as per the agreement with their overseas client differing from the description provided to the respondents. They highlighted discrepancies in the export invoices and the absence of necessary documentation required for claiming a refund for supplies to SEZ units. Despite the petitioner's success in the appeal nearly a year ago, the respondents had not challenged the order. The Court held that the petitioner should not have to wait indefinitely for the respondents to take action against the order. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to refund the amount specified in the appellate order within four weeks, allowing the respondents to initiate appropriate legal proceedings during this period. All rights and contentions of the parties regarding such proceedings were preserved.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition by ordering the refund of the specified amount to the petitioner within a set timeframe, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal provisions and ensuring the petitioner's rights were upheld while allowing the respondents the opportunity to challenge the appellate order within the prescribed period.