9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before the coordinate bench of this Court, it was the case of the petitioner therein that it was eligible to seek refund of IGST in accordance with the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the export supplies were Zero Rated Supplies . The Revenue had disputed the claim relying on the very notification dated 31.10.2016 after having considered the issue at hand especially Sections 16 and 54 of the CGST Act, the Division Bench of this Court held the writ-applicant is entitled to claim the refund of the IGST. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Laxmi Cement Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Pali [ 2016 (9) TMI 721 - SUPREME COURT] , the Division Bench held that the circular cannot run contrary to the statutory rule, more particularly, Rule 96. The Division Bench therefore, held that the circular had nothing to do with IGST refund. The petition was allowed directing the respondents to immediately sanction the refund of IGST. The respondents are directed to sanction the refund of IGST paid in context of shipping bills mentioned with simple interest @ of 6% from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund - petition allowed. - HONOURABLE MR. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tegrated goods and service tax paid on exported goods i.e. Zero Rated Supplies through Mundra Customs Port. The details of the shipping bills on which amounts of refund is claimed read as under: Sr. No. Shipping Bill Number Shipping Bill Date Amount of Refund (in Rs.) 1 8134141 21.08.2017 222899 2 8279481 28.08.2017 199867 3 8685452 15.09.2017 208725 4 9044375 03.10.2017 221886 Total 853357 4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he further seeks full refund of Rs. 2,13,543/- paid as IGST on goods exported i.e. Zero Rated Supplies through Hazira Port vide shipping bill no. 8188824 dated 23.08.2017. 4.3 Sometimes in August-October 2017, in context of the shipping bills, the petitioner had exported goods from Mundra Customs Port and Hazira Customs Port. The supplies were affected by payment of IGST in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act under claim of refund of IGST paid on export goods under Section 16(3)(b) of the Act read with Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner had declared details of such supplies by filing form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. 4.4 Vide letters dated 05.09.2022 and 15.09.2022, the petitioner requested for refund of IGST in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of this Court in the case of Amit Cotton (supra) which was subsequently followed in the case of Real Prince Spintex Private Limited (supra). Before the coordinate bench of this Court, it was the case of the petitioner therein that it was eligible to seek refund of IGST in accordance with the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the export supplies were Zero Rated Supplies . The Revenue had disputed the claim relying on the very notification dated 31.10.2016 after having considered the issue at hand especially Sections 16 and 54 of the CGST Act, the Division Bench of this Court held as under: 23. Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, referred to above provides for zero rating of certain supplies, namely exports, and supplies made to the Special Economic Zone Unit or Special Economic Zone Developer and the manner of zero rating. 24. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are one of zero rated supplies. A registered person making zero rated supplies is eligible to claim refund under the options as provided in sub-clauses (a) and (b) to clause (3) of Section 16 referred to above. 25. Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, provides that any person claiming refund of any tax and intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for refund of the integrated tax paid on the goods exported out of India and the claim for refund can be withheld only in the following contingencies : (a) a request has been received from the jurisdictional Commissioner of central tax, State tax or Union territory tax to withhold the payment of refund due to the person claiming refund in accordance with the provisions of subsection (10) or sub-section (11) of Section 54; or (b) the proper officer of Customs determines that the goods were exported in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 31. Mr.Trivedi invited our attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court as regards the binding nature of the circulars and instructions issued by the Central Government. 32. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, reported in 2008(12) S.T.R. 416 (S.C.), the Supreme Court observed as under : 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the law declared by this Court is supreme law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ). The Circulars cannot be given primacy over the decisions. 5. Learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be against very concept of majesty of law declared by this Court and the binding effect in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution. 33. In the case of J.K. Lakshmi Cement Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Pali, reported in 2018(14) G.S.T.L. 497 (S.C.), the Supreme Court observed as under : 25. The understanding by the assessee and the Revenue, in the obtaining factual matrix, has its own limitation. It is because the principle of res judicata would have no application in spite of the understanding by the assessee and the Revenue, for the circular dated 15.04.1994, is not to the specific effect as suggested and, further notification dated 07.03.1994 was valid between 1st April, 1994 up to 31st March, 1997 (upto 31st March, 1997 vide notification dated 12.03.1997) and not thereafter. The Commercial Tax Department, by a circular, could have extended the benefit under a notification and, therefore, principle of estoppel would apply, though there are authorities which opine that a circular could not have altered and restricted the notification to the determent of the assessee. Circulars issued under tax enactments can tone down the rigour of law, for an authority which wields power fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction. The doctrine is based upon the precept that the words used in a statutory provision must be understood in the same way in which they are usually understood in ordinary common parlance by the people in the area and business. (See : G.P. Singh s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13th Edition-2012 at page 344). It has been held in Rohitash Kumar and others v. Om Prakash Sharma and others (2013) 11 SCC 451 that the said doctrine has to be applied with caution and the Rule must give way when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. On a careful scrutiny of the language employed in paragraph 3 of the notification dated 21.01.2000, it is difficult to hold that the said notification is ambiguous or susceptible to two views of interpretations. The language being plain and clear, it does not admit of two different interpretations. 29. In this regard, we may state that the circular dated 15.04.1994 was ambiguous and, therefore, as long as it was in operation and applicable possibly doctrine of contemporanea exposition could be taken aid of for its applicability. It is absolutely clear that the benefit and advantage was given under the circular and not under the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
