2022 (5) TMI 696 - HC - GST

Refund of IGST - zero-rated supply of goods or services or both - mismatch in the accounts details between the details available with the PFMS and ICEs - Sections 54(5) and 54(7) of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that, keeping open all questions on the mismatches for decision by the Nodal Officer now suggested by Sri. Amit A. Deshpande, the petition must be disposed of directing the Nodal Officers to consider the petitioner s request for resolving the mismatch issues. The jurisdiction of the Customs Officers to decide on the claim for provisional refund and payment of interest under the provisions of the CGST Act would be a moot question, as the reasons for mismatches are yet to be resolved pursuant to this Court s order. But, as the provisional refund and payment of interest would be subject to resolving the issues around the mismatches now discussed or if any other, there should be no inhibition in law for the aforesaid Nodal officers, as they examine the resolution of the mismatches, to decide on the recommendations in this regard. The petitioner s authorized representative shall appear before Mr. Rajiv Kittur, the Nodal Officer for the Inland Container Depot, Whitefield on 25.04.2022 at 10 30 a.m., and the petitioner s authorized representative shall be heard on the mismatches pending before the Bangalore City Commissionerate and Inland Container Depot by this Nodal Officer - Application disposed off.

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) for exports carried out between November 2017 and August 2019.
2. Delay in granting immediate refund of specific amounts in respect of Shipping Bills.
3. Errors causing the holdback of petitioner's refund and resolution as per Facility Circular/Addendum.
4. Denial of provisional refund and final orders of refund to the petitioner.
5. Jurisdiction of Customs Officers to decide on the claim for refund under CGST Act.
6. Directions to Nodal Officers to consider petitioner's request for resolving mismatch issues.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, an exporter, sought a declaration of eligibility for refund of IGST for exports between November 2017 and August 2019, along with immediate refund of specific amounts related to Shipping Bills. The petitioner contended that the refund was withheld due to errors, and the Facility Circular/Addendum provided a mechanism for resolution of these errors.

2. The errors causing the holdback of the petitioner's refund were categorized into three types by the petitioner's counsel. These errors included situations where the Pay and Accounts Officer had canceled the refund despite scroll generation, scroll not being ready due to account details mismatch, and misrepresentation of export type. The Facility Circular/Addendum outlined specific steps to resolve each type of error.

3. The petitioner highlighted the denial of provisional refund and final refund orders, emphasizing the need for timely consideration of refund requests as per the CGST Act. The court was urged to intervene and direct the respondents to expedite decisions on both provisional and final refunds.

4. The respondents acknowledged the effort for faceless resolution of refund claims but emphasized the necessity of gathering necessary details, especially for transactions spanning a period. They assured that the petitioner's requests for final refund decisions would be duly considered, with opportunities provided to explain any mismatches.

5. The court considered the submissions from both parties and directed the petitioner's authorized representative to appear before designated Nodal Officers for resolving mismatch issues. The Nodal Officers were instructed to consider the explanations offered by the petitioner within a specified timeline and make recommendations for provisional refund based on the resolution of mismatches.

6. The court clarified that the jurisdiction of Customs Officers to decide on provisional refund and interest payment would be contingent upon resolving the mismatch issues. The order outlined specific dates for the petitioner's representative to appear before the Nodal Officers and emphasized the importance of timely decisions on refund requests.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's directives for resolving the refund-related matters effectively.

← Previous Next →