High Court Orders IGST Refund with Interest, Costs

The Bombay High Court directed the respondent to refund the IGST amount of &8377; 22,92,587 to the petitioner within four weeks, along with interest and costs. The Court issued a Writ of Mandamus due to the respondent's failure to process the refund despite the petitioner's entitlement and efforts. The Court emphasized the authorities' delay and non-compliance, ordering the refund with interest at 9% per annum from the filing date of the petition. All parties were instructed to act on the order without requiring a certified copy.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) paid for export of goods before notification of refund provisions under CGST Act and IGST Act. Discrepancy in printing of shipping bill causing delay in refund process. Dispute over jurisdiction for refund claim between Customs Department and Central Tax Department. Failure of authorities to process refund despite petitioner's efforts and entitlement.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction against the respondent to refund the IGST paid for the export of goods before the notification of refund provisions under the CGST Act and IGST Act. The petitioner exported goods on 28/6/2017, but due to the transition to the GST regime, the shipping bill was printed on 1/7/2017, with IGST details. The petitioner claimed refund of IGST amounting to &8377; 22,92,587, which was reflected in the IGST returns. The petitioner argued that the shipping bill itself should be deemed as an application for refund, as per Circular No.26/2017-Customs. However, the petitioner did not receive the refund, leading to the dispute. The Customs Department rejected the refund application, stating that the jurisdiction for IGST refund on exported goods lies with them.

The petitioner filed an application for refund in Form GST RFD-01A in February 2019, but it was rejected by the Customs Department. Despite multiple reminders and efforts by the petitioner, the authorities failed to process the refund, citing issues with data transmission between GSTN and ICEGATE. The petitioner then approached the High Court, seeking a direction for the refund of IGST. The Court noted the failure of the authorities to take a decision on the matter, despite being served with the petition and relevant communications. The Court directed the respondent to refund the IGST amount within four weeks, along with interest, costs, and without insisting on a certified copy of the order.

In the final judgment, the Court emphasized the respondent's failure to resolve the petitioner's issue and non-compliance with court directions. Due to the prolonged delay in refunding the IGST amount, the Court allowed the petition, issuing a Writ of Mandamus to refund the &8377; 22,92,587 with interest at 9% per annum from the filing date of the petition, along with costs. The Court directed the respondent to ensure the refund within four weeks and instructed all parties to act on the order without the need for a certified copy.

---