2023 (6) TMI 678 - HC - GST

Restriction on refund of IGST paid on export of goods - Procurement of goods under advance authorization / Deemed export - Constitutional Validity of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Seeking direction to respondent No.4 not to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 09.11.2022 pending the Special Civil Application - HELD THAT - In support of the prayer made in the present Civil Application, it was submitted that this Court has entertained several petitions involving very issue of vires of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and has also granted interim protection to the petitioners concerned - One of such order in VISION PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2023 (6) TMI 580 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT was produced before the Court. When in many cases, interim relief is granted, the petition deserves to be treated at par. Therefore, by way of interim relief, it is directed that the respondent authority shall not make any coercive recovery from the petitioner in respect of the refund of the integrated tax already paid, till further orders - civil application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the vires of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the prayer for interim relief against coercive recovery.

Challenge to Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017:
The main issue addressed in the Special Civil Application was the challenge to Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 as being ultra vires. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to strike down the sub-rule to the extent it denies the option of rebate claim for importing goods under Advance Authorization License. The challenge was based on the violation of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, as well as Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Interim Relief Against Coercive Recovery:
The petitioner requested interim relief to prevent coercive recovery by the respondent authority in relation to the refund of integrated tax already paid. The Court, considering past orders granting interim protection in similar cases, directed that no coercive recovery should be made until further orders are issued. This decision was made to ensure fairness and parity in treatment of such cases.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Civil Application challenging the vires of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 was allowed by the Court. The order granting interim relief against coercive recovery was also upheld, with the directive for the respondent authority to refrain from making any coercive recovery from the petitioner regarding the refund of integrated tax already paid until further orders are issued. This decision aimed to maintain the status quo and protect the interests of the petitioner during the pendency of the main petition.