2021 (6) TMI 184 - HC - GST

Court grants exemption from filing attestation of affidavits due to situation, directs timely refund decision.

M/s Green Leaf Tobacco Products Through its Proprietor Sh. Varun Kapoor Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs SIIB Branch & Anr.

The court allowed exemption from filing attestation of affidavits due to the prevailing situation, with the applicant directed to file signed and affirmed ... Refund of Export benefits - Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The concerned Respondents are directed to decide the claim of refund of the Petitioner, details of which have been furnished in the writ petition, as early as possible and practicable, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to facts of the case and also keeping in mind the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Counsel for the Petitioner assures that Petitioner shall co-operate with the concerned Authority in providing requisite documents and information necessary for arriving at a final decision. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Exemption from filing attestation of affidavits.2. Refund of export benefits under the IGST Act and CGST Act.Exemption from filing attestation of affidavits:The court allowed the exemption from filing attestation of affidavits due to the prevailing situation, directing the applicant to file duly signed and affirmed affidavits within a week of the Court's regular functioning resumption.Refund of export benefits under the IGST Act and CGST Act:The petitioner sought a refund of export benefits amounting to Rs. 3,57,52,392/- along with interest under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court noted that the decision on the refund claim was pending with the respondents. The court directed the concerned respondents to decide on the refund claim as early as possible, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with the law, rules, regulations, and government policies. The petitioner was required to cooperate with the authorities by providing necessary documents and information. The judgment referenced the case law of Union of India vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (1997 89 ELT 247 SC) in emphasizing the timely resolution of the refund claim. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.