2023 (5) TMI 711 - HC - GST

Refund of the amount of IGST on the ocean freight charged, already paid by the petitioner - Constitutional validity of N/N. 8 of 2017 and 10 of 2017 both dated 28.6.2017 read with corrigendum dated 30.6.2017 as held to be ultra vires in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . HELD THAT - The above position and law emanating from the decision of this court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. could not be disputed by learned advocates for the parties - It may also be mentioned that similar issue came up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench in ADI Enterprises vs. 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. Thus, the notifications impugned in this petition have already been declared ultra vires. Therefore, the said prayer in this petition did not require any further consideration. Refund of the amount of Rs.1,69,03,829/- paid by the petitioner as IGST on ocean freight of goods imported during January, 2018 till June, 2020 - HELD THAT - The competent authority of the respondents is directed that if such amount of IGST has been collected by the authorities, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order alongwith the statutory rate of interest. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include a petition seeking a writ of mandamus for refund of IGST, validity of impugned notifications, and the legality of refund claims.

Refund of IGST:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the refund of IGST already paid, citing Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST. The petitioner had paid IGST amounting to Rs.1,69,03,829 on ocean freight charged by a foreign vessel provider for the transportation of goods up to the customs clearance destination in India. The court directed the competent authority to refund the IGST amount collected from the petitioner within six weeks along with statutory interest.

Validity of Impugned Notifications:
The impugned notifications, specifically Notification Nos. 8/2017 and 10/2017 dated 28.6.2017, were challenged for their validity. Previous court decisions, including Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, deemed these notifications unconstitutional and ultra vires the statute. The court referred to similar cases such as Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. vs. UOI and Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. vs. Union of India, which upheld the invalidity of the notifications. The court also cited the decision in ADI Enterprises vs. Union of India, where a refund of IGST paid pursuant to Entry No.10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017 was directed.

Legality of Refund Claims:
The court acknowledged that the impugned notifications had already been declared ultra vires, rendering the prayer for consideration unnecessary. However, the court directed the competent authority to refund the IGST amount paid by the petitioner on ocean freight of imported goods. The court allowed the petition and disposed of it with directions for the refund within a specified timeframe.

This summary highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the refund of IGST, the validity of impugned notifications, and the legality of refund claims, providing a comprehensive overview of the court's decision.