9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], M/S. JAYSONS EXPORTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2022 (10) TMI 1259 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt.Ltd. [ 2020 (12) TMI 1116 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ], Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. [ 2022 (5) TMI 1138 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and in TMA International Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (12) TMI 1268 - DELHI HIGH COURT ], the Courts have held that, if the rate of drawback under column A and column B is the same, then, in such a situation, refund of IGST has to be ordered even if the party selects column A , as, because the rates are identical, by selecting column A the party does not get any double benefit. In the present case, the Petitioner has selected Column A and claimed drawback at a higher rate on its own volition. It is not the case of the Petitioner that it had selected column A and claimed drawback at a higher rate due to some mistake. The Petitioner will be entitled to refund of IGST after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback - Respondents are directed to grant refund of IGST paid on the goods exported by the Petitioner after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback, within 12 weeks of the date of this order, along with interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.07.2017 50,085.00 66,780.00 13. 53/14.07.2017 KHPL/343/17-18 14.07.2017 7381090/ 15.07.2017 129350 25-07-2017 DEL074463 18.07.2017 2,15,832.00 2,87,775.00 14. 56/15.07.2017 KHPL/344/17-18 15.07.2017 7385462/ 15.07.2017 131288 4-8-2017 CNS-NSA-1700298 02.08.2017 66,651.00 88,868.00 15. 66/17.07.2017 KHPL/345/17-18 17.07.2017 7412845/ 17.07.2017 130959 4-8-2017 FDS-NSA-1700116 31.07.2017 91,800.00 1,22,400.00 16. 90/20.07.2017 KHPL/347/17-18 20.07.2017 7491047/ 20.07.2017 130959 4-8-2017 FDS-NSA-1700294 08.08.2017 33,629.00 44,839.00 17. 97/21.07.2017 KHPL/348/17-18 21.07.2017 7514739/ 21.07.2017 130074 27-7-2017 OERT/0717018 24.07.2017 1,08,841.00 1,45,891.00 18. 100/22.07.2017 KHPL/349/17-18 22.07.2017 7539822/ 22.07.2017 131577 11-8-2017 CNS-NSA-1700309 24.07.2017 29,267.00 43,256.00 19. 99/22.07.2017 KHPL/350/17-18 22.07.2017 7539821/ 22.07.2017 130959 4-8-2017 FDS-NSA-1700295 02.08.2017 57,573.00 76,764.00 20. 105/24.07.2017 KHPL/351/17-18 24.07.2017 7565362/ 24.07.2017 131577 11-8-2017 CNS-NSA-1700306 09.08.2017 61,340.00 81,786.00 21. 118/26.07.2017 KHPL/352/17-18 26.07.2017 7618734/26.07.2017 131577 11-8-2017 CNS-NSA-1700308 09.08.2017 72,639.00 96,852.00 22. 229/11.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ). Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that, under Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 ( CGST Rules ), the shipping bill generated for the purpose of export of goods is required to be considered as the application for refund and no separate application is required to be filed. 4. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the refund of IGST so paid is required to be credited to the bank account of the exporter directly with the help of portal (GSTN), provided GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B are filed. In regard to the exports made by the Petitioner, details whereof are tabulated hereinabove, the Petitioner had paid IGST in regard to the goods which were exported and had also filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B on time. Therefore, it is the case of the Petitioner that the shipping bills filed in regard to the said exports were required to be treated as an application for refund and the refund of IGST paid in regard to exported goods was required to be credited in the Petitioner s bank account. 5. The exports were made by the Petitioner in July, August and September 2017. Despite considerably long time having passed, the said refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is to be considered as Zero Rated Supply as per Section 16 (3) (b) of the IGST Act. The procedure for availing the same is provided in Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. 11. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act dealt with refund of unutilized input tax credit accumulated on account of inverted rate structure and also such input tax credit of GST being accumulated on account of exports made without payment of tax under section 16 (3) (a) of the IGST Act. The procedure for availing the same was provided in Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The same had nothing to do with refund of IGST paid on exported goods in accordance with Section 16 (3) (b) of the IGST Act, which is to be availed under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. 12. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that Section 54 (3) specifically incorporates that refund of unutilized credit of IGST being accumulated on account of exports made without payment of GST, i.e. under Section 16 (3) (a), would not be allowed if drawback at higher rate is availed. However, there is no such restriction in Section 54 (1). Thus, refund of IGST paid on exported goods, which is due and payable in accordance with Section 16 (3) (b) of the IGS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d forward and shall not carry forward the amount of CENVAT credit on export credited under the CGST Act. Mr. Trivedi, submitted that, even if it is assumed that this condition is violated, the only outcome would be that the Respondents may recover the higher drawback amount. However, refund of IGST could not be withdrawn / denied. 16. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that even condition no.12A has been complied with by the Petitioner because the Petitioner had not availed and shall not avail input tax credit of the CGST or of the IGST. He submitted that, as the Petitioner had complied with one option, the Petitioner was not required to comply with another option of not availing IGST refund in regard to exported goods. 17. Mr. Trivedi submitted that Circular No. 32/2017 dated 20th July 2017, is nothing but an image of the aforesaid condition no.12A. It provides clarification regarding exports under claim for drawback in the GST scenario. It contemplates that a declaration is to be submitted by the exporter claiming drawback at higher rate. A format of the said declaration which is a part of the same Circular would show that this declaration is nothing but a mirror image of the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 438(Del.). ix. Phoenix Contact India Pvt.Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. (Exports), New Delhi 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 163 (Del.). x. Nilamel Exports vs. Union of India 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 692 (Ker.). xi. G NXT Power Corp. vs. Union of India Ors. Judgement of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in WP(C) No.2981 of 2019 (W) dated 29th August 2019. xii. Precot Meridian Ltd. vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs Judgement of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in WP(C) No.27772 of 2019 (V) dated 1st November 2019. xiii. R.P.Exim vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs 2023 (69) G.S.T.L.240 (Guj.). xiv. TMA International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 22 (Del.). xv. Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International vs. Union of India 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 51 (Del.). 21. As far as the Order dated 6th October 2023 was concerned, Mr. Trivedi submitted that, instead of allowing the refund of IGST, it wrongly rejected the same. He submitted that a perusal of the said order would show that it is admitted therein that the Petitioner had complied with condition no.12A and had not availed ITC as mentioned hereinabove. Mr. Trivedi furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exports vs. Union of India (Supra), Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. (DHC) (Supra) and in TMA International Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Courts have held that, if the rate of drawback under column A and column B is the same, then, in such a situation, refund of IGST has to be ordered even if the party selects column A , as, because the rates are identical, by selecting column A the party does not get any double benefit. 27. Further, in M/s. AIM Worldwide Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), M/s. Vimla Food Products (Supra), Amit Cotton Industries (Supra), Phoenix Contact India Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), Nilamel Exports (Supra), G NXT Power Corp. (Supra), R.P. Exim (Supra), Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International (Supra) and Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Courts allowed refund of IGST despite the party selecting column A and claiming drawback at a higher rate because the party had already paid back the differential drawback or the Courts allowed the refund of IGST by directing deduction therefrom of the differential drawback claimed. 28. In the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), the Gujarat High Court in fact held that Circular No. 37/2018-Customs dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
