2019 (9) TMI 563 - HC - GST

Court upholds duty drawback adjustment and IGST payment ruling, emphasizing timely compliance and interest liability

NILAMEL EXPORTS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NEW DELHI, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, GST COUNCIL, NEW DELHI AND THE NODAL OFFICER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

NILAMEL EXPORTS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NEW DELHI, THE ASSISTANT ... Issues:1. Adjustment of duty drawback amount and payment of balance IGST to petitioner.2. Direction to avoid additional burden of interest payment on IGST refund.3. Consequences of default in payment by respondents.Analysis:The judgment in question deals with a writ petition concerning the adjustment of duty drawback amount and the payment of the balance IGST to the petitioner. The court refers to a previous judgment from August 29, 2019, which provided specific directions to the respondents. The key points from the previous judgment include granting the respondents the liberty to adjust the amount already availed by the petitioner on account of higher duty drawback rate and to pay the remaining IGST amount within six weeks. Additionally, the respondents were directed to pay the balance amount of IGST minus the higher duty drawback rate already availed by the petitioner within the stipulated time to avoid any additional burden of interest payment on the IGST refund. In case of default by the respondents in making the payment as directed by the judgment, they would be liable to pay interest at a rate of 7% along with the balance amount payable from the date of the refund request until the actual payment date.The court, in disposing of the current writ petition, follows the same directives as laid out in the previous judgment. This ensures consistency in the application of the law and upholds the principles of fairness and justice. The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely and accurate payment adjustments to avoid any financial repercussions for the petitioner. By reiterating the consequences of default, the court aims to enforce compliance and accountability on the part of the respondents in fulfilling their obligations towards the petitioner. Overall, the judgment serves to clarify the legal obligations of the parties involved and provides a framework for resolving similar disputes in the future.