9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 404 - HC - GSTRefund of IGST - IGST on Ocean Freight - seeking direction to respondents to grant refund of the IGST paid by the petitioner pursuant to Entry No. 10 of N/N. 10 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017 in respect of which no input tax credit is availed by the petitioner with interest - HELD THAT - Similar issue came up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench in ADI ENTERPRISES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2022 (6) TMI 849 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , wherein the question was about refund of the IGST paid pursuant to the aforementioned Notifications. The court directed respondents to refund the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to Entry No.10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017. In view of the decision in MOHIT MINERALS PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1 OTHER 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , since the impugned Notifications have already been declared as ultra vires, present petition deserves to be allowed. The claim for refund of the petitioner towards IGST is liable to be favourably considered - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Refund of GST amount paid by a Public Limited Company engaged in importing natural gas. 2. Validity of Notifications No. 8 of 2017 and No. 10 of 2017 dated 28.6.2017 regarding IGST levy. 3. Previous judgments declaring similar notifications unconstitutional and ultra vires. 4. Direction for refund of IGST paid by the petitioner. Issue 1: Refund of GST amount paid by the petitioner The petitioner, a Public Limited Company engaged in importing natural gas, filed a petition seeking a refund of GST amounting to Rs.3,06,56,341/- along with interest, paid in accordance with Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017. The petitioner prayed for setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim and requested the authorities to grant the refund. Issue 2: Validity of Notifications No. 8 of 2017 and No. 10 of 2017 The court examined Notifications No. 8 and No. 10 of 2017 dated 28.6.2017, which levied IGST on inter-state supply of services and specified the reverse charge mechanism for payment of IGST by importers. The court referred to previous judgments, including Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., where similar notifications were held unconstitutional and ultra vires the statute, leading to a direction for refund of IGST paid by the applicants. Issue 3: Previous judgments declaring notifications unconstitutional The court cited various judgments, such as Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. and Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd., which followed the decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., declaring the notifications as ultra vires. The court reaffirmed the position that the impugned notifications were unconstitutional, as established in previous cases like Comsol Energy Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat. Issue 4: Direction for refund of IGST paid by the petitioner Based on the precedents and the decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., the court held that the impugned Notifications were ultra vires, warranting a refund of the IGST paid by the petitioner. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, directing the competent authority to verify and grant the refund of the IGST amount paid by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of the order, along with statutory interest. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition for refund of IGST paid by the petitioner in accordance with Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017, following the established legal precedents and declaring the impugned notifications as ultra vires.
|
