2020 (11) TMI 784 - HC - GST

Refund of IGST - Goods exported out of India during the period July 2017 to September, 2017 - It is the claim of the petitioner that in addition to the on-line process, the petitioner had also filed manual applications, however, the Department did not entertain the claims for refund and the amount sought for as refund was not given to the petitioner - HELD THAT - It is seen that the petitioner did not prefer any application seeking payment of interest @6% on the principal amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that the question of interest has been pursued upon only in the writ petition. Accordingly, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties since the principal amount has been already been received by the petitioner on the date mentioned above, the writ petition is closed permitting the petitioner to pursue its claim for interest before the appropriate authorities if so advised - The petitioner is at liberty to furnish a copy of this order along with the claim for refunds to be filed before the authorities. Upon such filing of the application with respect to interest before the Department, the authorities will, upon hearing the petitioner, pass appropriate orders as per the provisions of law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax under various sections of the GST Act, Claim for interest on the refunded amount.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship concern engaged in exporting goods to neighbouring countries, claimed a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax amounting to a specific sum paid on goods exported from India. The petitioner contended that the entire amount paid as customs was refundable under relevant sections of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite filing necessary papers and applications for refund, the Department did not process the refund, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court.

Subsequently, upon issuance of a notice by the court, the Department initiated the refund process and refunded the principal amount claimed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner also sought payment of interest at a rate of 6% on the principal amount, which the Department had not addressed. The court noted that the petitioner had not formally applied for interest payment but had raised the issue in the writ petition.

After hearing both parties, the court acknowledged that the principal amount had been refunded to the petitioner. As the petitioner had not formally applied for interest payment, the court closed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the claim for interest before the appropriate authorities. The petitioner was directed to provide a copy of the court order along with the interest claim to be filed before the authorities. The court instructed the authorities to consider the claim for interest in accordance with the law upon submission of the application by the petitioner.

Ultimately, the court closed and disposed of the writ petition without any cost implications.