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>Exporters Win: Tax Authorities Must Process IGST Refund Manually Despite GSTR-1 Filing Errors Within 12 Weeks</h1> <h3>Bajaj Herbals Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Customs & Ors.</h3> HC ruled in favor of petitioner, directing tax authorities to manually process IGST refund of Rs. 19,44,122 for exported goods within twelve weeks. ... Refund of IGST paid in regard to the goods exported by the petitioner - petitioner has exported the goods but inadvertently did not include the amount of IGST paid by the petitioner in Form GSTR-1 for the relevant month - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent authorities to immediately act and manually process the refund payable to the petitioner as claimed in this petition within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition disposed off. Issues:Petition for refund of IGST paid on exported goods due to inadvertent mistake in filing GSTR-1.Analysis:The petitioners sought a direction for the refund of IGST amounting to Rs. 19,44,122/- paid for goods exported but not included in Form GSTR-1. The petitioner included the IGST amount in Form GSTR-3B and GSTR-9. The petitioner, upon realizing the error, tried to amend Form GSTR-1 but was unsuccessful as the refund was already claimed based on shipping bills. The petitioner made multiple representations to authorities for refund, citing Circular no.12 of 2018-Cus. The Customs office informed the petitioner that they cannot amend the errors made in GSTR-1 data. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief.Advocate for the petitioner argued that the inadvertent mistake deprived the petitioner of a legitimate refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. Referring to a previous court decision, it was contended that the authorities should manually process the refund and credit the amount to the petitioner's account. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate acknowledged the petitioner's eligibility for the refund but highlighted the system limitation preventing the refund.The High Court directed the respondent authorities to manually process the refund within twelve weeks, emphasizing that the petitioner would not be entitled to interest on the refund due to the error. The court disposed of the petition without any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
