9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred by the petitioner for following reliefs; (i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ / order/ direction, or a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the appellate order dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure 8) and the refund rejection order in Form RFD-06 dated 16.5.2023 along with a detailed order dated 15.5.2023 (Annexure - 6 and 6/1) since the rejection of refund of the Petitioner is based in extraneous grounds which are beyond the requirements of the CGST Act, the CGST Rules and the binding circulars issued thereunder. (ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ / order/ direction, or a writ in the nature in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,23,22,617 along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed is an appealable order has no meaning in view of the fact that the "GST Tribunal" is still not functional. The Respondents further tried to defend the order impugned by reiterating the grounds taken in the impugned order and contended that the petitioner has attached samples of invoices showing multiple bills issued by it which shows the export taking place. Since as per the petitioner, it had exported the goods on the basis of letters of undertaking and as such applied for a refund of accumulated cess for a sum of Rs. 1,23,22,617/-, thereafter the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was asked to provide proof of receipt of payment from exporter within 180 days, proof showing the goods have been exported outside India within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that "insistence on proof of realization of export proceeds for processing of refund claims related to export of goods has not been envisaged in the law and should not be insisted upon" Even otherwise, the requirement of payment should be within 9 months of export as per clause A2 of RBI Circular being FED Master Direction No. 16/2015-16 dated 1.1.2016 as amended from time to time (Annexure-11); and the record suggests that all payments have been received by petitioner within 9 months as is evident from Annexure-9 to the writ application. Consequently, the 1st ground of rejection of "Refund Application" with regards to non-furnishing of receipt of payment within 180 days of export has no legs to stand in the eye of law. 6. So far as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2019 Circular clearly states that "asking for self-declaration with every refund claim where the exports have been made under LUT, is not warranted". Thus, this ground is also inconsistent with their own circular. 8. Likewise, even the 4th ground of rejection regarding non-furnishing of undertaking under proviso to Section 11 (2) of the Cess Act, is also not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that proviso to Section 11 (2) of the Cess Act only provides that ITC of Cess can be set off against Output Tax Liability of Cess. Since the Petitioner exports goods under Letter of Undertaking without payment of tax, there is no question of set off. Even paragraph-42 of the Impugned Circular (Refer Page-116) clarifies that stipulatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
