2023 (2) TMI 984 - HC - GST

Refund claim - refund order challenged on the ground that the Exporter had not mentioned the name and GST Identification Number of the present petitioner and was not mentioned in the shipping bill which was an essential condition of the N/N. 40/2017-CGST (Rate) and Notification No.41/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 23.10.2017 - HELD THAT - It is true that initially, the Exporter to whom the petitioner has sold the goods had not mentioned the name and GST Identification Number of the petitioner. However, the authority granted refund considering the factual aspect of the matter i.e. details about the goods sold by the petitioner to the Exporter and further transferred by the Exporter to the third party. It is also true that subsequently, at the request of the petitioner, correct form was submitted by the Exporter to the authority and, therefore, this aspect was required to be considered by the Appellate Authority which is essentially not done in the present case - the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside appellate order, restore original refund sanction order, determine liability for interest under GST Acts, and restrain respondents from coercively recovering refund amount.

Analysis:

1. Relief sought under Articles 14 and 226:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in medicine manufacturing, applied for refund under Rule 89(5) of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 due to an inverted duty structure. The refund was initially sanctioned but later appealed against by the CGST department on the grounds of missing details in the Exporter's documentation. The petitioner argued for the refund based on a subsequent submission of correct information by the Exporter. The Court found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.

2. Export refund application and discrepancies:
The petitioner's export refund application was initially granted by the Assistant Commissioner, but the CGST department appealed against it due to missing details in the Exporter's documentation. The petitioner contended that the missing information was later provided by the Exporter upon request. The Court acknowledged the missing details but emphasized the subsequent submission of correct information and directed the Appellate Authority to consider all relevant documents before making a decision.

3. Arguments of the petitioner and respondents:
The petitioner's advocate argued that the missing details were rectified by the Exporter, entitling the petitioner to the refund. On the other hand, the respondents' advocate opposed the petition, stating that the initial missing information should have precluded the refund. The Court considered both arguments but ultimately sided with the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant facts and documents before making a decision on the refund application.

4. Court's decision and directions to the Appellate Authority:
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and revived the appeal filed by the CGST department. It directed the petitioner to submit any additional documents supporting the refund claim to the Appellate Authority, which was instructed to decide the appeal afresh without being influenced by previous orders. The Court kept all issues open for the Appellate Authority's consideration and permitted direct service of the order.