2019 (9) TMI 515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....D CUSTOMS JUDGMENT Heard Mr. John Varrghese for petitioners and Sri P.R. Sreejith for respondents. 2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions though are distinct entities, as the writ prayers are substantially same, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. The counsel have treated W.P.(C) No.2981 of 2019 as the lead writ petition and have made submissions by referring to the materials in W.P.(C) No.2981 of 2019. It is further stated that consideration of circumstances in lead writ petition would be sufficient for disposing of the other writ petition as well. W.P.(C) No.2981 of 2019 3. The petitioner is an exporter. The petitioner through Exts.P3 and P4 have exported goods. It is relevant to note that GS....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7. In the aforesaid context, the respodnents have fairly conceded that the case of the writ-applicant is not falling within sub-clauses (a) and (b) respectively of clause (4) of Rules 96 of the Rules, 2017. The stance of the department is that, as the writ applicant had availed higher duty drawback and as there is no provision for accepting the refund of such higher duty drawback, the writ-applicant is not entitled to seek the refund of the IGST paid in connection with the goods exported, i.e. 'zero rated supplies'. 28. If the claim of the writ-applicant is to be rejected only on the basis of the circular issued by the Government of India dated 9th October 2018 referred to above, then we are afraid the submission canvassed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by allowed. The respondents are directed to immediately sanction the refund of the IGST paid in regard to the goods exported, i.e., 'zero rated supplies', with 7% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund." 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents does not dispute the fact that the subject transaction in fact is with effect from 01.07.2017, come under Section 16 of IGST Act and are zero-rated. It is also not disputed that the voluntary or erroneous payment of IGST is required to be refunded to petitioner. The objection pointed out by Sri Sreejith is that the petitioner has already drawn or availed the higher rate of duty drawback and therefore while ordering refund of IGST....