9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the system designated by the Customs or the Proper Officer of the Customs. The derivative being that the claim of refund if not dealt by the system electronically has to be considered by the Customs Authorities of the port wherefrom the goods have been exported. The petitioner is aware of the position and had raised that the grievances of non-grant of refund before the Commissioner of Indian Customs (Exports) of the Ports from where the goods were exported. The reliance on the circular dated 05.07.2017 to contend that Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax is the Proper Officer for Rule 96 is misplaced. The notification of 2017 was qua Rule 96 (6) which was deleted w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The Sub-Rule dealt with the case of passing of order by the Proper Officer of the Central Tax or the State Tax in case of withholding of refund under Sub-Rule (5). The Sub-Rule was not relevant for refund of IGST arising due to export of goods - In absence of any pleadings for cause of action or part of cause of action accruing in State of Rajasthan for non-grant of refund and in view of the fact that the application for refund was made at the ports for exports and the claim is to be dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the issue of territorial jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered with the Rajasthan GST Authorities; is having permanent establishment in Rajasthan and has been allocated to jurisdiction of the State Authorities. Submission is that the refund is to be processed by the proper officer. Reliance is placed upon circular No. 3/3/2017-GST dated 05.07.2017 to contend that Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax is the proper officer for Rule 96 of Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'Rules'). The contention is that the refund cannot be denied for inadvertent claim of higher rate of duty drawback. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Awadhkrupta Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2021) 89 GSTR 163 against which SLP No.7095/2021 filed by the Union of India was dismissed on 30.07.2021. The order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Mundra, Kutchmundra Port & SPL Economic Zone is produced to argue that on similar facts the refund of petitioner of IGST relating to period August 2017 was sanctioned. 7. Per contra the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner 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 sub-section (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." XX XX XX 9. Rule 96 deals with refund of IGST paid on goods exported out of India. Sub-Rule (1) accords the deeming fiction to the shipping bill filed by an exporter of the goods to be application for refund of IGST paid on exported goods. The deeming fiction is subject to;- (i) the departure manifest or export manifest or an export report covering the number and date of shipping bills or the bill of export being filed by the person in-charge of conveyance carrying the export goods; (ii) furnishing of a valid return in FORM GSTR-3B; and (iii) the Aadhar authentication as per Rule 10-B is done of the applicant. Sub-Rule (2) stipulates electronical transmission of relevant export invoices in FORM GSTR-1 to the system designed by the Customs and further transmission by the Customs system to the common portal for confirmation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant paras are quoted below:- "12. We will now examine whether any of the facts mentioned in Paragraph 16 of the applications or for that matter in the entire special civil applications would give rise to any part of the cause of action at Ahmedabad, at least for the purpose of conferring territorial jurisdiction on the High Court at Ahmedabad. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that it is an admitted fact that none of the respondents in the civil applications (Appellants herein) are stationed at Ahmedabad. It is also an admitted fact that the pass-book in question, benefit of which the respondent is seeking in the civil applications, is issued by an authority who is stationed at Chennai. The Designated Authority who is the competent person in respect of the matters concerning the Pass Book Scheme and who discharges various functions under the Scheme is also stationed at Chennai. The entries in the pass-book under the concerned Scheme are to be made by the authorities at Chennai. The export of prawn made by the respondents and the import of the inputs benefit of which the respondents are seeking in the applications, also will have to be made through the same Port i.e. Chen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of cases before this Court. In this regard, it would suffice for us to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. (1994 4 SCC 711 at 713) wherein it was held: Under Article 226 a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. The expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. Thus the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. reported in (2023) 7 SCC 791 while dealing with the challenge made in Sikkim High Court to notification issued under Central Goods & Service Tax Act and IGST Act, 2017 claiming maintainability of petition on ground that petitioner and respondents are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sikkim High Court held :- "11. The High Court, while delivering the impugned judgment and order, proceeded to hold that the writ petitioners were aggrieved not only by the impugned notification issued by the appellant under the CGST Act but also by the act of the Central Government in issuing the impugned notifications under the CGST Act as well as the IGST Act seeking to levy tax (GST) on lotteries organized, promoted and conducted by the State of Sikkim. The High Court further noted that it was not the actual incidence of GST under the CGST Act which is impugned in the writ petitions but the provisions of law made by the Parliament as well as the respective State Governments including the State of Goa by which they sought to levy GST on lotteries. Considering the prayers made in the writ petition, the High Court was further of the view that, at least, a part of the cause of acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests." (emphasis supplied) 17. In the case in hand, for invoking jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court it is pleaded that the petitioner is carrying on business in Rajasthan, registered with the GST Authorities at Rajasthan and is being assessed at Rajasthan. No further pleadings have been made for the cause of action or part of cause of action arising in State of Rajasthan. 18. Under Rule 96 (3) the claim of refund upon receipt of information of applicant having filed valid return in FORM GSTR-3(B) shall be processed by the system designated by the Customs or the Proper Officer of the Customs. The derivative bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
