Court declares IGST Notification unconstitutional, grants refund relief. Prompt processing urged.

The Court declared Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST(Rate) unconstitutional and lacking legislative competency. The petitioner was granted the principal relief sought, directing them to apply for a refund of the IGST amount paid. The Court instructed the competent authority to process the refund promptly without technical issues. Other requests for restraining coercive steps and ex parte relief were not specifically addressed in the judgment. The Court emphasized the petitioner's obligation to initiate the refund process through the appropriate channels.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as ultra vires Section 5(3) of the IGST Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Claim for refund of IGST already paid pursuant to the impugned Entry No.10.
3. Request for restraining coercive steps by the respondents pending notice, admission, and final hearing.
4. Seeking ex parte ad interim relief.
5. Application for refund of IGST amount paid on ocean freight.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant challenged Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST(Rate) as ultra vires Section 5(3) of the IGST Act and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court referred to a previous judgment where a similar entry was declared unconstitutional. The Court quoted relevant paras from the judgment and declared the impugned notifications as lacking legislative competency and unconstitutional. The principal relief sought in the present writ application was granted based on the previous decision.

2. The petitioner sought a refund of the IGST amount already paid in compliance with the impugned Entry No.10. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the amount deposited and the entitlement to a refund following the striking down of the Notification. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a refund application. The authority was instructed to process the refund without raising technical issues within four weeks of receiving the writ order.

3. In addition to the refund claim, the petitioner requested the Court to restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps pending further proceedings. However, the Court did not address this specific request in the judgment, as the main relief of refund was already granted.

4. The petitioner also sought ex parte ad interim relief, but the judgment did not mention any specific decision or order related to this request. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Court did not find it necessary to grant such relief based on the information provided in the judgment.

5. The petitioner presented a statement showing the IGST paid on ocean freight and expressed concerns about the authority's ability to process the refund. The Court clarified that the refund process should be initiated by the petitioner through an appropriate application to the competent authority. The Court emphasized that the authority should promptly review the refund claim without raising technical objections, in line with the Court's decision in a related case.

In conclusion, the Court granted the principal relief sought by the petitioner regarding the challenge to the impugned notification and directed the petitioner to pursue the refund claim through the proper channels. The judgment provided a clear roadmap for the refund process, emphasizing the authority's obligation to process the refund without delay or technical hindrances.

---