2020 (1) TMI 1090 - HC - GST

High Court directs refund of IGST for exports to Bhutan under CGST Act; petitioner to make representation within 10 days.

Ceat Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors.

The High Court of Calcutta directed the petitioner to make a representation before the Assistant Commissioner(Preventive), Dinhata, within ten days for ... Refund of IGST - section 54 of the CGST Act - respondents submits that requisite application has not been made before the concerned officer - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is directed to make a representation before the Assistant Commissioner(Preventive), Dinhata, and also serve a copy of this writ petition upon the concerned authority within a period of ten days from date. Upon receipt of the representation and copy of the writ petition, the authority concerned is directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of the representation and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one week from date of passing such order. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Inaction on the part of authorities for granting refund of IGST levy for exports made to Bhutan under section 54 of the CGST Act.Analysis:The judgment issued by the High Court of Calcutta pertains to an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner raised concerns regarding the authorities' inaction in granting a refund of IGST levy for exports to Bhutan under section 54 of the CGST Act. The counsel representing the respondents argued that the petitioner had not submitted the necessary application to the designated officer. Therefore, the court directed the petitioner to make a representation before the Assistant Commissioner(Preventive), Dinhata, within ten days, along with serving a copy of the writ petition to the concerned authority. The authority was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing and subsequently issue a reasoned order within four weeks from receiving the representation, communicating the decision to the petitioner within one week of passing the order.The judgment explicitly stated that the court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, keeping all aspects open for consideration by the concerned authority. The writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions. Notably, the court mentioned that since no affidavits were utilized, the allegations presented in the writ petition were not admitted by the petitioner. The court further ordered the prompt provision of a certified copy of the order to the involved parties, contingent upon their compliance with the necessary formalities.