2022 (10) TMI 1066 - HC - GST

Refund of IGST with interest in terms of rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 R/witness Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017 - violation of terms and condition of notification No.131/2016 dated 31.10.2016 - HELD THAT - Perusal of the material on record including the impugned letter at Annexure B dated 27.09.2021 would indicate that the specific contention urged by the petitioner in relation to his request for entitlement to refund of IGST paid by him on export of goods has not been considered by the respondents who have merely rejected the same by placing reliance upon circular No.37/2018 dated 09.10.2018 and not adverting to the other contentions of the petitioner with regard to his entitlement for refund. In the light of the circular dated 09.10.2018 and notification dated 31.10.2016 and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned letter at Annexure B dated 27.09.2021 and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the material on record - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of a letter issued by the 1st Respondent.
2. Seeking refund of IGST with interest.
3. Applicability of circulars and statutory provisions.
4. Higher duty drawback claim and its impact on the refund claim.
5. Violation of terms and conditions of a notification.
6. Consideration of petitioner's entitlement for refund of IGST.
7. Remittal of the matter for fresh reconsideration.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash a letter issued by the 1st Respondent and a direction for refund of IGST. The petitioner argued that the impugned letter did not consider their specific claim for refund and was contrary to relevant circulars. The petitioner relied on statutory provisions, circulars, and judgments to support their claim.

2. The respondents contended that the petitioner's initial claim for a higher duty drawback, later reversed, affected the refund claim. They also alleged a violation of notification terms by the petitioner. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the refund claim should be rejected.

3. The court noted that the petitioner's entitlement for IGST refund was not adequately considered by the respondents. The court referred to the circular dated 09.10.2018 and notification dated 31.10.2016, along with judgments cited by the petitioner. Without delving into the merits of the contentions, the court set aside the impugned letter and remitted the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration.

4. In the final order, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned letter, and directed the concerned respondent to reconsider the matter within three months, considering all relevant materials and judgments cited by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional documents if needed.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues raised in the petition, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's evaluation of the contentions, and the final order issued by the court for reconsideration of the matter.