TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax authorities must release Rs.14.8 crore IGST refund after petitioner reversed Input Tax Credit under Section 54(6)</h1> <h3>M/s. CHOKSI EXPORTS Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> M/s. CHOKSI EXPORTS Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 10 (Guj.) , [2023] 112 G S.T.R. 360 (Guj) Issues:Petition seeking direction for release of withheld IGST refund amount, classification as risky exporter, compliance with GST laws, financial impact on petitioner, delay in refund disbursement, legal provisions for refund issuance, relevance of Circular No.131/1/2020-GST, verification process, withholding refund based on risky supplier classification, provisional refund, non-compliance with Section 54(6) of CGST Act, relevance of Telangana High Court judgment.Analysis:The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and exporting organic pigments, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking the release of a withheld IGST refund amounting to Rs.14,80,27,927.67. The petitioner was classified as a risky exporter, leading to a delay in refund disbursement, causing financial distress and potential business closure. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including the removal of the risky exporter tag and provisional refund of 90% of the claimed amount.The respondents, through affidavits-in-reply, highlighted the initiation of inquiries, suspension as per RMCC instruction, and the need for NOC from DGARM for refund disbursement. The petitioner's compliance with verification processes, submission of necessary documents, and reversal of Input Tax Credit were emphasized. Respondents contended that the refund was withheld due to alleged wrongful ITC availed by the petitioner.The petitioner's counsel argued that the refund withholding was arbitrary, citing violations of relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. Reference was made to Circular No.131/1/2020-GST, highlighting delays in report submission and subsequent refund disbursement. The counsel also relied on a Telangana High Court judgment to support the petitioner's claim for refund.After considering submissions, the Court found that the petitioner had complied with the necessary procedures, including reversal of ITC, and there was no legal basis for withholding the refund. The Court emphasized the obligation to grant provisional refunds as per Section 54(6) of the CGST Act and directed the respondents to credit the IGST refund amount to the petitioner's account within three weeks, aligning with the Telangana High Court's observations.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of delayed refund disbursement, compliance with GST laws, and the arbitrary withholding of refunds based on risky exporter classification. The Court's decision emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions in refund processing, ultimately granting relief to the petitioner for the withheld IGST refund.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
