2021 (4) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9/2017-Cus. (NT) dated 29.06.2017 (Annexure P-3) and Notification No. 73/2017-Cus. (NT) dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P- 4)] are (i) ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017, & (ii) unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India & Quash the same; b) Declare that Circular No. 37/2018-CUSTOMS dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) is (i) ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017, and (ii) unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India & Quash the same; c) As a consequence of the above, Direct Respondent Authorities to grant ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x component, necessary directions would be issued". 5. The matter was thereafter taken up by the Court on 15.03.2021 when Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, informed the Court that he had received an e-mail dated 11.03.2021 from the concerned officer, which was indicative of the fact that the duty drawback qua the Central Excise had not been availed by the petitioners. Thus, the only other aspect which respondent no.2 was required to examine, was, as to whether the petitioners had availed the duty drawback qua the Service Tax component. 6. It is in this background that the matter was posted for hearing today i.e. 26.03.2021. 7. Given the directions issued on 15.03.2021, respondent no.2 has filed an affidav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... up the 'input tax credit' to the extent of Rs. 1856/- qua FY 2015-2016. 9. Having regard to the history of the case, we put to Mr. Singh as to the time-frame in which the IGST could be refunded to the petitioners. 9.1. Mr. Singh says that since several Commissionerates are involved, it would take at least four weeks. 9.2. Thus, the only other question left for consideration is: as to whether the petitioners should be paid any interest for delayed remittance of refund on account of IGST? 9.3. Mr. Samar Bansal, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, in support of his plea that the interest should be paid, has cited the judgement dated 27.06.2019, passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, in M/s Amit Cotton Industries vs. P....