9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 419 - HC - GSTRefund of input tax credit in respect of tax paid on purchase of goods utilized for export - Delay in receipt of Convertible foreign exchange - Petitioner also seeks a direction for payment of interest by the respondents - HELD THAT - The petitioner s claim for refund is pivoted on the provisions of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - A perusal of Section 8 of FEMA would show that, it calls upon the concerned person to take reasonable steps for realisation and repatriation of foreign exchange proceeds. In this case, the realisation and repatriation of foreign exchange involves proceeds from goods exported by the petitioner. Furthermore, nothing has been shown by Mr. Singh, which would connect the provisions of Section 8 of the FEMA with Section 16 of the IGST Act. The matter requires further examination - Issue notice.
Issues:
1. Application seeking exemption from filing attested affidavits along with the writ petition. 2. Rejection of refund claim of income tax credit under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) due to non-submission of bank realisation certificates. Analysis: 1. The judgment begins with the court allowing an application seeking exemption from filing attested affidavits along with the writ petition, subject to the petitioner submitting the attested affidavits within three days of the court resuming normal work patterns. The application is disposed of accordingly. 2. Moving on to the main issue of the writ petition (W.P.(C) 5228/2021), the petitioner challenges the rejection of its refund claim for income tax credit related to tax paid on goods purchased for manufacturing goods ultimately exported. The petitioner also seeks interest payment along with the refund. The claim is based on Section 16 of the IGST Act. 3. The respondent, represented by Mr. Devesh Singh, defends the rejection of the refund claim, citing the absence of bank realisation certificates as a reason. Mr. Singh relies on Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) to support the rejection. 4. The court examines Section 8 of FEMA, emphasizing the requirement for the concerned party to take "reasonable steps" for realisation and repatriation of foreign exchange proceeds. It notes the lack of evidence connecting Section 8 of FEMA with Section 16 of the IGST Act presented by Mr. Singh. 5. Considering the need for further examination, the court issues a notice on the matter. Mr. Singh accepts service on behalf of the respondents, and a counter-affidavit is directed to be filed within two weeks, with a rejoinder, if any, before the next hearing date. 6. Additionally, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit correspondence and relevant material demonstrating the steps taken to realise export proceeds. Any material submitted must be supported by an affidavit and shared with Mr. Singh. This directive is issued without prejudice to the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of relation between Section 8 of FEMA and Section 16 of the IGST Act. 7. The court schedules the next hearing for 28.05.2021 to further address the issues raised in the writ petition.
|
