9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 571 - HC - GSTRefund of IGST paid on export - refund not being paid for the reason that the writ petitioner had inadvertently mentioned the drawback claim under column A instead of column B - HELD THAT - Similar issue had arisen and was duly dealt with by a Division Bench in its judgement M/S AMIT COTTON INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER, VELJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI RANIPA VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2019 (7) TMI 472 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - The said judgement has attained finality and this Court, while allowing the petition, directed for refund of the IGST paid in regard to the good exported with 7% simple interest from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund. The present petition also deserves to be allowed in the same terms, and is, accordingly, allowed.
Issues:
1. Refund of IGST paid on export by the petitioner. 2. Incorrect mention of drawback claim under column - A instead of column - B. 3. Application of precedent set by a Division Bench judgment. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, M/s. Aniket Exports, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for the respondent to grant a refund of IGST paid on exports from August 2017, along with appropriate interest. The court noted that the refund was withheld due to an error where the drawback claim was mistakenly mentioned under column - A instead of column - B. 2. The court referred to a previous Division Bench judgment in the case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, wherein a similar issue was addressed. The judgment, authored by one of the judges, directed the refund of IGST paid on exports with 7% simple interest from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund. The respondent department did not contest the legal principles established in this precedent. 3. Considering the precedent and the facts of the present case, the court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to refund the IGST amount claimed by the petitioner within four weeks, along with 7% interest. The court emphasized that since the legal principles were undisputed and the previous judgment had attained finality, the present petition deserved a similar outcome in terms of refund and interest. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of refund of IGST, the error in mentioning the drawback claim, and the application of legal precedent to ensure a fair outcome for the petitioner in line with established legal principles.
|
