Petitioner granted mandamus for IGST refund settlement; compliance with CGST Rule 96 crucial

The court granted the petitioner's mandamus for settlement and release of pending IGST refund, emphasizing compliance with Rule 96 of CGST Rules. Previous court decisions favored the petitioner's eligibility for the refund. The petitioner submitted required documents, and the court directed the Assessing Authority to verify and pass orders before the next hearing. The court disposed of the petition with no costs, setting a future date for final orders based on document verification. The judgment stressed the significance of legal eligibility and factual compliance for IGST refund claims, ensuring a balanced resolution for the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Mandamus for IGST refund settlement and compliance with Rule 96 of CGST Rules

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a mandamus for the settlement and release of pending IGST refund related to specific shipping bills. The petitioner had previously filed a representation seeking the same relief, which had not received a response, leading to the writ petition.

2. The legal issue of eligibility for IGST refund had been decided in favor of the petitioner by previous court decisions, establishing a settled legal position beneficial to the petitioner.

3. However, compliance with the pre-conditions outlined in Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was emphasized. These conditions include the production of necessary certificates and documents, such as the export manifest, export refund covering the shipping bill details, and a valid return in Form GSTR 3 or 3B.

4. The petitioner had apparently submitted the required documents in a communication dated 24.07.2018. The court noted that the verification of the factual aspect regarding the production of documents under Rule 96 was crucial and should be conducted by the Assessing Authority. The court directed the Assessing Authority to examine the documents and pass orders before the next hearing date.

5. The court disposed of the writ petition with no costs, setting a future date for the production of orders based on the verification of documents as per Rule 96. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to be heard either manually or virtually before the orders were finalized.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of both legal eligibility and factual compliance with procedural rules in the context of IGST refund claims, ensuring a balanced approach to resolving the petitioner's concerns.

---