2020 (10) TMI 526 - HC - GST

Refund of Outstanding GST - the learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a letter dated 29th September, 2020 issued by Deputy Commissioner (Legal) stating that pending IGST refund of ₹ 7,61,176/- has been scrolled out to the petitioner vide Scroll No.26339/2020 dated 29th September, 2020. HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that she has received pending IGST refund of ₹ 7,61,176/- - the present writ petition is disposed of as satisfied.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of outstanding IGST amount, Amendment to shipping bill, Partial refund processing delay, Technical difficulties causing refund delay, Compliance with Circular 40/2018-Cus, Court's intervention for resolution.

Refund of outstanding IGST amount:
The petitioner sought a refund of the outstanding IGST amount paid on a shipping bill, highlighting an error in the IGST amount mentioned in the bill. Despite an amendment to the shipping bill correcting the IGST amount, only a partial refund had been processed, leading to the petitioner filing a revised refund request for the pending amount. The petitioner emphasized compliance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, in submitting the amendment application.

Amendment to shipping bill:
The petitioner successfully applied for an amendment to the shipping bill, correcting the IGST amount paid. The amendment was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, revising the IGST amount from the erroneous figure to the correct amount as per the export invoice and GST returns.

Partial refund processing delay:
The delay in processing the refund arose from the discrepancy between the IGST amount paid and the amount mentioned in the shipping bill. Despite the amendment and a revised refund request, only a partial refund had been paid, prompting the petitioner to seek the remaining amount.

Technical difficulties causing refund delay:
The petitioner attributed the refund processing delay to technical difficulties faced by them, indicating inefficiency on the respondent's part. The Circular 40/2018-Cus issued by the CBIC was cited to support the petitioner's claim for the pending refund amount.

Compliance with Circular 40/2018-Cus:
The petitioner contended that the Circular 40/2018-Cus covered their case, emphasizing that the refund delay was unjustified due to technical issues and inefficiency on the respondent's part. The respondent, represented by the senior standing counsel, acknowledged the issue and sought time for resolution.

Court's intervention for resolution:
The Court intervened in the matter, issuing directives for resolution within a stipulated timeframe. Subsequently, the respondent informed the Court about the pending IGST refund being scrolled out to the petitioner, leading to the petitioner confirming the receipt of the outstanding refund amount. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as satisfied, with the Court recording appearances and ensuring the order's dissemination to the concerned parties.