IGST refund petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 96(3) - must file at export port location

Rajasthan HC dismissed writ petition seeking IGST refund with interest for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner, a Rajasthan-registered business, sought refund related to export ports outside Rajasthan. Court held that under Rule 96(3), IGST refund claims must be processed by Customs authorities at the port of export, not the state where business is registered. Despite petitioner's registration and assessment in Rajasthan, no cause of action arose within the state's jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed without addressing the substantive issue of IGST refund entitlement alongside duty drawback claims.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction for entertaining the writ petition.
2. Entitlement to refund of Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) despite claiming a higher rate of duty drawback.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:

The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a private limited company engaged in exporting natural stones, seeking a refund of IGST. The petitioner argued that since it is registered with the Rajasthan GST Authorities and has a permanent establishment in Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court has jurisdiction. However, the respondents contended that the refund pertains to the ports of export, which are outside Rajasthan's jurisdiction.

The court examined Rule 96 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017, which stipulates that the claim for refund of IGST paid on exported goods is to be processed by the system designated by the Customs or the Proper Officer of the Customs at the relevant port of export. The court emphasized that the goods were exported from ports not within the jurisdiction of Rajasthan, and the documents for export were filed at those ports.

Relying on precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Adani Exports Limited & Anr., the court held that the facts pleaded by the petitioner, such as carrying on business in Rajasthan and being registered with the GST Authorities in Rajasthan, do not constitute a cause of action within Rajasthan. The court reiterated that for determining territorial jurisdiction, the facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of the dispute, which in this case, is the non-grant of refund by the Customs Authorities at the port of export.

The court concluded that the writ petition could not be entertained for want of territorial jurisdiction, as the cause of action did not arise in Rajasthan. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on this ground.

2. Entitlement to Refund of IGST:

The court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's entitlement to a refund of IGST despite having claimed a higher rate of duty drawback, as it had already dismissed the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner had argued that the refund could not be denied due to an inadvertent claim of a higher duty drawback and cited a decision from the Gujarat High Court in support. However, since the court found that it lacked jurisdiction, it did not address this issue.

In summary, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, without addressing the substantive issue of the petitioner's entitlement to a refund of IGST.

---