9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 926 - HC - GSTRefund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax - export of goods on the date when the provisions for refund and calculation of IGST under the CGST Act and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had not been notified - HELD THAT - At the beginning itself this court indicated to the Counsel that we are inclined to dispose the petition at this stage itself because respondent No.6 never attempted to resolve the problem of petitioner and no reply has been filed and directions of this court have not been complied with. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Petitioner seeking refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) paid for export of goods before notification of refund provisions under CGST Act and IGST Act. Discrepancy in printing of shipping bill causing delay in refund process. Dispute over jurisdiction for refund claim between Customs Department and Central Tax Department. Failure of authorities to process refund despite petitioner's efforts and entitlement. Analysis: The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction against the respondent to refund the IGST paid for the export of goods before the notification of refund provisions under the CGST Act and IGST Act. The petitioner exported goods on 28/6/2017, but due to the transition to the GST regime, the shipping bill was printed on 1/7/2017, with IGST details. The petitioner claimed refund of IGST amounting to &8377; 22,92,587, which was reflected in the IGST returns. The petitioner argued that the shipping bill itself should be deemed as an application for refund, as per Circular No.26/2017-Customs. However, the petitioner did not receive the refund, leading to the dispute. The Customs Department rejected the refund application, stating that the jurisdiction for IGST refund on exported goods lies with them. The petitioner filed an application for refund in Form GST RFD-01A in February 2019, but it was rejected by the Customs Department. Despite multiple reminders and efforts by the petitioner, the authorities failed to process the refund, citing issues with data transmission between GSTN and ICEGATE. The petitioner then approached the High Court, seeking a direction for the refund of IGST. The Court noted the failure of the authorities to take a decision on the matter, despite being served with the petition and relevant communications. The Court directed the respondent to refund the IGST amount within four weeks, along with interest, costs, and without insisting on a certified copy of the order. In the final judgment, the Court emphasized the respondent's failure to resolve the petitioner's issue and non-compliance with court directions. Due to the prolonged delay in refunding the IGST amount, the Court allowed the petition, issuing a Writ of Mandamus to refund the &8377; 22,92,587 with interest at 9% per annum from the filing date of the petition, along with costs. The Court directed the respondent to ensure the refund within four weeks and instructed all parties to act on the order without the need for a certified copy.
|
