EOU gets relief after mistakenly claiming IGST refund under Rule 96 instead of Rule 89

The HC allowed a petition by a 100% EOU that had mistakenly claimed refund under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 instead of Rule 89. The petitioner exported goods and sought refund of IGST paid on capital goods and inputs. The court held that procedural irregularity should not prevent legitimate export incentives, citing SC precedent that procedures are handmaids of justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to authorities to examine exports and grant refund under Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 per Section 16(3) of IGST Act, 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the refund claim under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
2. Applicability of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for the refund claim.
3. Procedural irregularities and their impact on the grant of export incentives.
4. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Refund Claim under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017:
The petitioner challenged the impugned Order-in-Original No. 01/2022 - GST, dated 23.03.2022, which confirmed the demand of Rs. 22,50,53,102/- for ineligible refund of IGST paid on exports. The impugned order was based on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which bars exporters who have availed benefits under certain notifications from claiming a refund of IGST paid on exports. The petitioner had availed benefits under Notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax and Notification No. 78/2017-Customs, which made them ineligible for the refund claimed under Rule 96.

2. Applicability of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for the Refund Claim:
The petitioner contended that they should have filed a refund claim under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017, instead of Rule 96. The petitioner argued that the procedural irregularity should not obstruct the legitimate grant of export incentives. The court noted that the petitioner is entitled to exemption under Rule 89 as the petitioner received inputs under the relevant notifications. The court emphasized that procedural irregularities should not hinder the grant of export incentives.

3. Procedural Irregularities and Their Impact on the Grant of Export Incentives:
The court highlighted that procedural irregularities should not prevent the legitimate grant of export incentives. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad, which stated that "rules or procedures are handmaids of justice not its mistress." The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the fifth respondent to pass a fresh order by examining the exports made by the petitioner for a refund under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

4. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The impugned order invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for recovering the ineligible refund. The petitioner argued that the extended period could not be applied as all details were reflected in the GST Returns, and no information was deliberately withheld. The court found that the petitioner had deliberately paid IGST on exports and availed a refund despite knowing the restrictions under Rule 96(10). The court held that the act of paying IGST and availing a refund amounted to suppression of facts.

5. Imposition of Penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017:
The impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,50,53,102/- under Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The court upheld the imposition of the penalty, stating that the petitioner had deliberately contravened the provisions of Rule 96(10) by paying IGST on exports and availing a refund. The court found that the petitioner's actions amounted to a misstatement of facts, justifying the penalty.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the fifth respondent to pass a fresh order by examining the exports made by the petitioner for a refund under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The court directed the fifth respondent to complete this exercise within three months, taking note of the amendments to Rule 96 and the relevant instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

---