9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order of refund issued by the adjudicating officer without verifying the said shipping bills from the Customs Department. Appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects while coming to a final conclusion - Accordingly, judgement and order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 (2) of the GST Act is hereby set aside. Respondent No. 4 is directed to reconsider the issue after thorough scrutiny of documents and verification of shipping bills submitted by the writ petitioner and shall take afresh decision within four months from this date after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned. Respondent No. 4 shall also give an opportunity being heard to the petitioner or his authorized representatives. No coercive action shall be taken against the writ petitioner by the respondents concerned till the final decision. Petition disposed off by way of remand. - HON BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sougata Banerjee, Ms. Stuti Bansal, Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ratan Banik Mr. Bishwaraj Agarwal Advocates JUDGMENT AJAY KU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1,34,39,325/= have been cleared by the Inspector of Customs, Hatisar LCS, who is not authorised to function as Proper Officer for the purpose of permitting or allowing exportation of the consignment and at the same time, 3 shipping bill nos. 607101, 607102 and 607105 all dated 17.03.12021 having same FOB value of Rs.13,99,525/= each has been cleared by the Superintendent of Customs, without obtaining any approval from the AC/DC of Customs having jurisdiction over Hatisar LCS since it is mandatory requirement in terms of applicable guidelines as prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs as such these bills cannot be accepted as valid proof of export for the purpose of refund . 3. It is further case of the petitioner that the challenge in the said appeal by the respondent no. 2 was in respect of total 15 shipping bills out of 18 shipping bills pertaining to the export transaction on the primary ground that the 12 shipping bills were found cleared by Inspector of Customs, Hatisar LCS, who is not the proper officer to clear from the port for exportation of goods and three shipping bills having an export value of Rs. 13,99,525/- each has been cleared by Superintendent of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department as the same is not signed by the Respondent but by a Customs Officer and therefore penalizing the Respondent is not correct. vii. Further for non-EDI port sanctioning Authority could have asked for Reports from the respective Land Customs Station before disbursing the refund amount if the Department was not convinced regarding the same. viii. That the Respondent while filing Refund Application uploaded Quadruplicate copy of the Shipping Bills. However, triplicate copy of the Shipping Bills signed by the Superintendent was handed over to the Disbursing Authority through physical mode. Triplicate copies of the Shipping Bills were signed by the rank of the Superintendent after satisfying the required conditions. ix. Therefore, it is clear that goods have been correctly exported outside India as such writ petitioner is entitled for the refund of the same. 6. Considering the case of the respondent No. 2/appellant as well as cross objection filed by the Petitioner herein, the appellate authority passed judgment and order dated 12.12.2022, whereby allowed the said appeal partly by observing therein that the refund Sanction order bearing no. ZY1906210 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading. It was a bonafide mistake and for satisfaction and verification, Petitioner again submitted the triplicate copies of shipping bills signed by the Superintendent of Customs physically before the authority but despite of the fact, respondent No. 4 did not consider. It is not the case of respondent No. 4 that the Petitioner had not exported goods. It is the duty of the department of customs to issue clearance of consignment for exportation under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not the obligation of the petitioner to ask the Government Officials of the Customs Department to sign the shipping bills by the Superintendent or any other officer, when customs officials have already accepted the exits of goods for export and triplicate copy of the shipping bills had been signed by the Superintendent of Customs and quadruplicate part of the same has been countersigned by the Inspector of Customs which itself means clearance was given for export by a proper authority. It cannot be challenged by the another department falls under the same Government under Union of India and it is not the duty of the writ petitioner to clarify who would be the appropriate authority or who would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnover of Zero-rated supplies envisaged in Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for the purpose of arriving at the Refund amount. Accordingly, the writ petition should be dismissed with costs. 12. Heard rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that there is dispute regarding refunds of ITC as claimed by the writ petitioner through common portal. At the time of submitting refund in form GST-RFD-01, Petitioner had uploaded required documents including Shipping bills. The same was verified by the Adjudicating officer and found EDI Shipping bills verification receipt from LCS proper and finally passed refund sanctioned order no. ZY1906210178152 dated 15.06.2021 in Form GST RFD-06. Later it was scrutinised by the respondent No. 4 and found some anomalies in 12 shipping Bills regarding counter signature by the Inspector of Customs, Hatisar LCS, who is not authorized to function as Proper Officer and also found 03 Shipping Bills have been cleared by the Superintendent of Customs without obtaining any approval from AC/DC of Customs having jurisdiction over Hatisar LCS when the value of export goods were more than 10 lacks and declared those shipping bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er documents need to be provided by the applicant at the stage of filing of the refund application. Accordingly, the applicant has uploaded the documents which are required by the Circular. Only mistake was made by the petitioner is that he had uploaded the quadruplicate copy of the shipping bills which was countersigned by the Inspector of Customs. Subsequently, when it came to know about the anomalies, the petitioner has submitted the triplicate copy which was countersigned by the Superintendent of Customs before the Authority for consideration but without considering the same the respondent no. 2, has filed the appeal against the sanctioned order of refund issued by the adjudicating officer without verifying the said shipping bills from the Customs Department. Appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects while coming to a final conclusion. Accordingly, judgement and order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 (2) of the GST Act is hereby set aside. 14. Respondent No. 4 is directed to reconsider the issue after thorough scrutiny of documents and verification of shipping bills submitted by the writ petitioner and shall take afresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
