2021 (8) TMI 36 - HC - GST

Authority directed to decide representations on IGST levy for repaired aircraft goods re-imported since July 2017

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Delhi HC directed the respondent authority to decide petitioner's representations regarding IGST levy on repaired aircraft goods re-imported into India ... Levy of IGST - repaired Goods re-imported into India between July 2017 till date - Aircrafts - IGST on fair cost of repairs and cost of insurance and freight in terms of Serial No. 2 of N/N. 45/2017-Cus. - HELD THAT:- The aim of the Policy is to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. “Efficient litigant” means ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not needlessly persevered. Litigation should not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been repeatedly affirming that the propensity of Government Departments and Public Authorities to keep litigating is one of the reasons for docket explosion. Mindful of the said factor and the rising litigation, Government has framed the National Litigation Policy to ensure that pendency of cases is brought down and only meaningful issues are brought before the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V [2020 (9) TMI 496 - SUPREME COURT], in its Postscript Note 1, observed that a certificate for dismissal is obtained from the highest court so that a quietus could be put to the matter in the Government Departments. Relegating a party to approach Courts or Tribunals, again and again, for interpretation of provisions of any Act or Rules or Notifications, which stand interpreted in earlier judgements is not only victimisation to the litigant but also wastage of judicial time. Moreover, the judgments which are not stayed or overruled by the higher Forums are binding on the respondents and ought to be followed wherever applicable in the facts of a given case. It is directed that the concerned Respondent Authority to decide the representations preferred by the Petitioner, which are Annexures A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8, appended to the present writ petition, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government Policies and with due deference to the decisions rendered by the CESTAT, New Delhi dated 02.11.2020 - petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavit and payment of court fee.2. Implementation of CESTAT orders for exemption from IGST on re-imported repaired goods.3. Compliance with judicial discipline and National Litigation Policy.Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption from Filing Duly Affirmed Affidavit and Payment of Court Fee:The court allowed the application for exemption from filing a duly affirmed affidavit and payment of court fee due to the prevailing situation. The petitioner was directed to file the signed and affirmed affidavits within one week and pay the requisite court fee within 72 hours from the resumption of regular court functioning.2. Implementation of CESTAT Orders for Exemption from IGST on Re-Imported Repaired Goods:The petitioner, a scheduled airline operator, sought the implementation of CESTAT's orders dated 02.11.2020 and 15.01.2021, which exempted IGST on re-imported repaired goods under Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. The petitioner argued that despite these orders, the authorities continued to levy IGST, causing financial losses. The petitioner had cleared goods by paying IGST under protest and filed numerous Bills of Entry, which were repeatedly assessed with IGST by different officers interpreting the notifications differently.The court found merit in the petitioner's contention, noting that CESTAT had clearly ruled in favor of the petitioner, exempting IGST on re-imported goods. The court observed that the respondents' failure to implement these orders and the continued imposition of IGST constituted harassment and financial strain on the petitioner.3. Compliance with Judicial Discipline and National Litigation Policy:The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, stating that lower authorities must comply with orders from higher tribunals. The court criticized the respondents for not adhering to CESTAT's decisions and for compelling the petitioner to repeatedly seek legal remedies. The court referenced the National Litigation Policy, which aims to reduce government litigation and ensure that the government acts as an efficient and responsible litigant. The policy discourages unnecessary litigation and emphasizes the need for government departments to settle disputes amicably rather than resorting to prolonged legal battles.The court highlighted various judgments and policies underscoring the government's responsibility to avoid wasteful litigation and to follow binding judicial decisions. The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representations in accordance with the law, regulations, and CESTAT's decisions, and to dispose of them expeditiously.Conclusion:The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to comply with CESTAT's orders and the National Litigation Policy, ensuring that the petitioner is not subjected to unnecessary litigation and financial strain due to non-compliance with binding judicial decisions.