Court Orders Timely Decision on IGST Refund Applications

The Court directed respondent No.3 to decide on the refund applications for IGST paid on goods exported to Nepal by the petitioner within one month, ensuring a fair hearing. If the refund is due, it must be released promptly in compliance with the law. The judgment did not express any opinion on the case's merits, focusing solely on expediting the procedural aspect of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim of IGST paid on goods exported to Nepal

Analysis:
The writ applicant sought relief through a writ of mandamus for the refund application of IGST paid on goods exported to Nepal. The applicant, Jade Elevator Components, supplied goods to various entities in Nepal and filed for a refund in December 2018. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST, Division V, Ahmedabad South, returned the refund claim twice, citing the processing responsibility of such claims lies with the Customs System under Rule 96 of the CGST Act 2017. The applicant addressed these refusals through written correspondence, seeking approval for the refund claim. The Court, after hearing the counsel for the applicant, directed respondent No.3 to decide on the refund applications within one month from the order's receipt. The decision was to be made after providing an opportunity for the applicant to be heard. If the applicant is entitled to the refund, it should be released within the following month in compliance with the law. The writ application was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

This judgment primarily deals with the refund claim of IGST paid on goods exported to Nepal by the petitioner, Jade Elevator Components. Despite the applicant's electronic filing for the refund in December 2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST, Division V, Ahmedabad South, returned the claim twice, stating that such claims related to the export of goods with IGST payment should be processed by the Customs System under Rule 96 of the CGST Act 2017. The applicant corresponded with the authorities, urging them to sanction the refund claim, emphasizing their eligibility for the refund due to the goods being exported to Nepal. The Court, after hearing the applicant's counsel, directed respondent No.3 to decide on the refund applications within a month, ensuring a fair hearing for the applicant. If the refund is due, it must be released within the subsequent month as per the law. The judgment refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of deciding the refund claim.

The Court's decision in this case revolves around the procedural aspect of the refund claim for IGST paid on goods exported to Nepal by the petitioner. Despite the applicant's efforts to secure the refund by filing electronically in December 2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST, Division V, Ahmedabad South, rejected the claim twice, citing that such claims should be handled by the Customs System under Rule 96 of the CGST Act 2017. The applicant, through written communication, requested the authorities to sanction the refund claim, highlighting the goods' export to Nepal as the basis for their eligibility. The Court, after hearing the applicant's counsel, directed respondent No.3 to make a decision on the refund applications within a month, ensuring a fair hearing for the applicant. If the refund is warranted, it should be released within the subsequent month in accordance with the law. The judgment refrained from delving into the case's merits, focusing solely on expediting the decision-making process regarding the refund claim.

---