Jharkhand HC disposes writ petition on IGST liability after CGST authority grants Rule 96A extension for export invoices

The Jharkhand HC disposed of a writ petition challenging IGST liability on supplies to BHEL for export. The petitioner had deposited considerable tax due to delay in export beyond the specified time limit under LUT provisions. During proceedings, the competent CGST authority granted extension of time under Rule 96A(1)(a) of CGST Rules, 2017 for seven export invoices, rendering the constitutional challenge moot. The court directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional GST authority for refund or reversal of the deposited tax amount.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of compensation for additional IGST liability demanded by Respondent No. 2.
2. Quashing of demand notices and refund request.
3. Extension of time for export and tax liability due to delay.
4. Coercive steps taken against the petitioner.
5. Jurisdiction of the writ petition and disposal of the case.

Issue 1: Denial of Compensation for Additional IGST Liability:
The petitioner sought a declaration that the denial of compensation for additional IGST liability by Respondent No. 1 was arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions and tender terms. The petitioner also requested payment of the additional IGST amounting to Rs. 13,26,49,589 demanded by Respondent No. 2. The court noted the obligations of the supplier and recipient under the tender terms and purchase order, emphasizing the need for compliance with GST laws and notifications regarding exports.

Issue 2: Quashing of Demand Notices and Refund Request:
An interlocutory application was filed seeking to quash demand notices issued by Respondent No. 2, alleging arbitrariness and violation of tax laws and constitutional provisions. The petitioner requested the refund of the amount paid as IGST and recovery from Respondent No. 1. The court considered the demands and the petitioner's submissions, including the request for refund and penalties imposed, while allowing time for filing responses.

Issue 3: Extension of Time for Export and Tax Liability Due to Delay:
The delay in export by Respondent No. 1 led to the petitioner being held liable for the differential tax amount, despite compliance requirements falling on the recipient. The petitioner's representations for an extension of the export timeline were unaddressed, resulting in demands for tax payments. The court examined the circumstances, including delays in exports, and the petitioner's arguments regarding the liability imposed on them due to the recipient's actions.

Issue 4: Coercive Steps Taken Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner faced coercive actions to pay the tax amount demanded, leading to payments and penalties. The court considered the petitioner's contentions regarding the denial of compensation and the coercive measures taken, highlighting the obligations of the state entity under the tender terms to pay applicable GST levies.

Issue 5: Jurisdiction of the Writ Petition and Disposal of the Case:
The court addressed the jurisdictional aspects of the writ petition, noting the involvement of state authorities and the amenable nature of the dispute to writ jurisdiction. After subsequent developments, including the granting of an extension of the export timeline by the competent authority, the court disposed of the petition. The petitioner was directed to approach the jurisdictional GST authorities for refund or reversal of the tax payments, closing the pending interlocutory applications.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the legal arguments, factual circumstances, and the court's considerations leading to the final disposal of the case.

---