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>Exporter wins IGST refund case as authorities failed to process claim under Rule 96 CGST Rules 2017</h1> <h3>Man Energy Solutions India Private Limited (formerly known as Man Diesel & Turbo India Pvt. Ltd.), Versus Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Aurangabad.</h3> The Bombay HC ruled in favor of an exporter seeking IGST refund for goods exported from India. The court held that customs authorities failed to process ... Refund of IGST - goods exported out of India - failure of the customs authorities to process the refund claim - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 prescribes that the Shipping Bill filed by an exporter of goods shall be deemed to be an application for refund of integrated tax paid on the goods exported out of India, and such bill (deemed application) was presented by the petitioner to the respondents. In view of the same, the respondents ought to have taken up the proceedings in view of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. As per Section 54 (7) of the CGST Act, the proper officer shall issue the order under Sub-section (5) within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application complete in all respects. Herein the present case, the Shipping Bill is dated 24th August 2018. The Circulars dated 16th March 2018 and 2nd January 2019 are issued by the respondents, wherein the responsibility has been fixed on the officers and the shipping agent. Now the respondents cannot say that the petitioner should correct the error SB006. Withholding of the refund is impermissible, it has to be either allowed or rejected, for the reasons to be recorded. No such reasons have been recorded and rejection order has not been passed. Respondent No. 3 are directed to immediately process and sanction an amount of Rs. 2,44,61,247/- of IGST paid by the petitioner towards the goods exported from India in respect of Shipping Bill and deemed refund application bearing No. 7114580 dated 24th August 2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. Petition allowed. Issues involved:The judgment involves issues related to the processing of a refund claim of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) for goods exported from India, failure of the customs authorities to process the refund claim, statutory obligations under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Factual Matrix and Petitioner's Contentions:The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and exporting high capacity diesel engines, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondent No. 3 to process and sanction the IGST refund amount. The petitioner alleged that despite fulfilling all statutory obligations, the refund claim of Rs. 2,44,61,247/- for goods exported was not processed by the customs authorities. The petitioner argued that as per Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the shipping bill should be considered as an application for refund, and the refund should have been processed without delay. The petitioner contended that the reasons for withholding the refund were not valid and that interest should be paid for the delay in processing the refund.Respondent's Reply and Arguments:The Respondents, through an affidavit-in-reply, admitted most facts but stated that the petitioner's IGST refund was pending due to errors in the filing process, specifically related to the Gateway EGM not being filed. The Respondents argued that the petitioner was aware of the errors and had not rectified them, leading to the delay in processing the refund claim.Court's Observations and Decision:The Court noted the Circulars issued by the Respondents regarding the filing process and responsibilities of officers and shipping agents. The Court referred to relevant case laws supporting the petitioner's contention that the shipping bill should be treated as an application for refund under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Court held that the delay in processing the refund was unjustified and directed Respondent No. 3 to process and sanction the IGST refund amount within four weeks. Additionally, the Court ordered the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner from the date of the refund application until the realization of the amount.Conclusion:In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay directed the customs authorities to process and sanction the IGST refund amount for goods exported by the petitioner within a specified period. The Court also ordered the payment of interest to the petitioner for the delay in processing the refund claim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
