9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented by the petitioner to the respondents. In view of the same, the respondents ought to have taken up the proceedings in view of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. As per Section 54 (7) of the CGST Act, the proper officer shall issue the order under Sub-section (5) within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application complete in all respects. Herein the present case, the Shipping Bill is dated 24th August 2018. The Circulars dated 16th March 2018 and 2nd January 2019 are issued by the respondents, wherein the responsibility has been fixed on the officers and the shipping agent. Now the respondents cannot say that the petitioner should correct the error SB006. Withholding of the refund is impermissible, it has to be either allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114580 dated 24 August 2018 was treated as filed till the date on which the amount mentioned in (i) above is paid to the credit of the Petitioner since the Respondents have illegally and arbitrarily failed to process and sanction such amount. 2. The factual matrix leading to the Petition are, that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling high capacity diesel engines. The petitioner exports its articles outside India, which culminate in valuable foreign exchange. The petitioner is registered with the Goods and Service Tax (for short GST ) authorities in the State. The controversy arose, as per the petitioner, upon the failure of respondent No. 3 in processing the refund claim of Integrated Goods and Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. by Devki Nandan Pant Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Aurangabad, wherein almost all the facts are admitted, however, it has been stated that the petitioner had opted for rebate route under Section 16 (3) of the IGST Act for the relevant export of IC Diesel Engine and they had lodged Shipping Bill (for short SB ) No. 7114580 dated 24th August 2018 along with other supporting documents at port of shipping, ICD, Waluj where the shipping line responsible for conveyance of the goods under export moved the goods to Mumbai Port and were ultimately exported to Singapore. Petitioner s IGST refund was pending for processing in the ICES system for Error / Response Codes SB005 i.e. for invalid invoice number and SB006 Gateway EGM not filed. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification of errors in local and gateway EGM, wherever necessary. It has been further reiterated that, there is shared responsibility between officers working at ICDs and gateway ports in ensuring an error free filing and integration of local and gateway EGMs. Error free filing and integration of EGMs is a pre-requisite for smooth processing of refunds and therefore it was stated that necessary outreach may be done to sensitize domestic carriers as well as shipping lines and the agents with regard to due diligence that is required in filing of EGMs and its critical importance in hassle free processing of IGST refunds. Again by another Circular dated 2nd January 2019 further directions in respect of mismatch in local and gateway EGM were gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kes the correction, the respondents would process the refund. 8. Before we proceed, we are taking note of the letter issued by Assistant Commissioner, ICD Waluj, Aurangabad to the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Chapter Cell, Aurangabad on 28th October 2021, wherein it is stated that:- As per the exporter s submission it is seen that the Gateway EGM No. 156344 dtd. 23.08.2018 was filed by the Shipping Line i.e. M/s Samsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai a day before filing of Shipping Bill No. 7114580 dated 24.08.2018 by the exporter. Thus, the details of Gateway EGM was not be updated in the ICEGATE after filing Shipping Bill and the error SB006 still persists as being shown in the ICEGATE document status till date. 9. Therefore, taking into c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents are trying to shirk their responsibility, the case is made out for exercise of the constitutional powers of this Court. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition succeeds. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. We hereby direct Respondent No. 3 to immediately process and sanction an amount of Rs. 2,44,61,247 (Rupees Two Crores Forty Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Seven) of IGST paid by the petitioner towards the goods exported from India in respect of Shipping Bill and deemed refund application bearing No. 7114580 dated 24th August 2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 11. We further direct Respondent No. 3 to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
