2022 (5) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: "(i) Issue an appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) holding the Circular No. 37/018-Cus dated 09.10.2018 ultra virus the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 to the extent it purports to clarify that refund of IGST will not be granted when drawback is claimed under column "A" of drawback schedule and to direct the Respondents; (ii) Direct the Respondents to grant forthwith the refund of IGST paid on the exported goods to the tune of Rs.7,12,996.00 in terms of Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules along with appropriate interest." 2. The prayers have been made in the backdrop of the following essential facts : (i) The petitioner has, admittedly, exported goods valued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'B' [i.e., drawback when CENVAT facility has been availed] for products exported by the petitioner is the same. In this behalf, the petitioner has adverted to the Schedule appended to the Notification 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.) dated 31.10.2016 ["2016 Notification"] 2.1. Insofar as these core facts are concerned, they are not in dispute. 3. According to the Petitioner the refund of IGST was not made available as the respondents erroneously concluded that the rate of duty drawback qua the subject goods exported by the petitioner under column A was higher. 3.1. However, what has emerged, as noticed above, is that rates referred against products exported by the petitioner, both, in Column 'A' and Column 'B' are identical i.e., 2%. 4. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contends that the respondents were well within their rights not to grant refund, as no application was preferred for correcting the error, which the petitioner had, admittedly, committed. 7.1. It is, therefore, Ms. Godiyal's submission that once an application is made, only then correction would be made in the system, which could, thereafter, perhaps lead to the petitioner obtaining relief as claimed i.e., refund of IGST. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8.1. According to us, the issue raised in the petition is no longer res integra, and is covered by various judgments passed by this Court as well as by the other High Courts. For the sake of brevity, reference is made to the following jud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hah has submitted, with some vehemence, that interest should kick-in from the date discernible, as per Section 56 of the CGST Act. 10.2. Ms. Godiyal, on the other hand, with equal vehemence, has opposed this contention of the petitioner, given the facts and circumstances which have arisen in this case. 10.3. According to Ms. Godiyal, since the petitioner did not take steps for having, in the very least, the declaration corrected, no interest should accrue to the petitioner. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the declaration which the petitioner made, upon, inadvertently, choosing the wrong option: "DBK002 - I declare that no refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on export goods shall be claimed." 1....