2021 (6) TMI 681 - HC - GST

Seeking release of pending refund of IGST - HELD THAT - The pre-conditions set out under Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which are production of certificates and documents such as the export manifest or export refund covering, the number and date of the shipping bill or bills of export and a valid return in Form GSTR 3 or 3B as the case may be, have to be complied with by the assessee concerned. In this case the petitioner appears to, prima facie, have produced the above documents under cover of its communication dated 24.07.2018. In any event, this is a question of fact that would have to be verified by the Assessing Authority - while the legal issue stands decided in favour of the petitioner, let the factual aspect of production of documents in terms of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules be looked into by Assessing Authority and orders passed prior to the next date of hearing on representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2020. Petition disposed off - List on 15.07.2021.

Summary

Issues: Mandamus for IGST refund settlement and compliance with Rule 96 of CGST Rules

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a mandamus for the settlement and release of pending IGST refund related to specific shipping bills. The petitioner had previously filed a representation seeking the same relief, which had not received a response, leading to the writ petition.

2. The legal issue of eligibility for IGST refund had been decided in favor of the petitioner by previous court decisions, establishing a settled legal position beneficial to the petitioner.

3. However, compliance with the pre-conditions outlined in Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was emphasized. These conditions include the production of necessary certificates and documents, such as the export manifest, export refund covering the shipping bill details, and a valid return in Form GSTR 3 or 3B.

4. The petitioner had apparently submitted the required documents in a communication dated 24.07.2018. The court noted that the verification of the factual aspect regarding the production of documents under Rule 96 was crucial and should be conducted by the Assessing Authority. The court directed the Assessing Authority to examine the documents and pass orders before the next hearing date.

5. The court disposed of the writ petition with no costs, setting a future date for the production of orders based on the verification of documents as per Rule 96. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to be heard either manually or virtually before the orders were finalized.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of both legal eligibility and factual compliance with procedural rules in the context of IGST refund claims, ensuring a balanced approach to resolving the petitioner's concerns.