TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpensate the Petitioner company with the additional IGST liability demanded vide letters dated 28 July 2021 (Annexure- 12), 17 September 2021 (Annexure-17) and 29 September 2021 (Annexure-18) by the Respondent No. 2, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to and beyond the terms of the Tender dated 3 January 2019 and Purchase Order dated 16 January 2019; (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction or a declaration thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 to pay the Petitioner the additional Integrated Goods and Services Tax amounting to Rs. 13,26,49,589/- and the applicable interest and penalty, which has been demanded by the Respondent No. 2 vide its letters dated 28 July 2021 (Annexure-12), 17 September 2021 (Annexure-17) and 29 September 2021 (Annexure-18). 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a declaration that denial by the Respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 02.11.2021 to compensate the petitioner with additional IGST liability demanded by the Respondent No. 2 vide letters dated 28.07.2021, 17.09.2021 and 29.09.2021, is arbitrary, unreasonable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....41/2017 dated 23rd October, 2017 or similar Notification issued by the 2 State /Union Territory GST authority is levied along with all necessary compliances. As per one of the purchase order at page 144 all inclusive total F.O.B. Port Price included all taxes and duties excluding GST. GST along with CESS (as applicable) legally leviable & payable by successful bidder as per GST Law, shall be paid by BHEL. Petitioner supplier corresponded with the Commissioner North CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Kolkata (Annexure-11) with a request for extension of time limit for making exports by BHEL during the period February 2019 to April 2020 and specifically referred to para 5.1 of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 as per which if in cases the export have been made but not within 3 months, from the date of issue of the invoice for export, payment of Integrated Tax first and claiming refund at a subsequent date should not be insisted upon. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid background facts pleaded from the records submitted that clause 5.1 of the circular indicates that in such cases, the Jurisdictional Commissioner may consider granting extension of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these background facts has argued that because of delay in export by the respondent no.1 petitioner is being made liable to pay the differential tax though all the compliances were required to be made by respondent No.1-BHEL the recipient. Respondent No.1 being a State entity under the terms of the tender and also the purchase order is required to pay the GST leviable and payable by the supplier. Respondent No.1 has however surprisingly denied to compensate the petitioner with the additional IGST liability vide its letter dated 2nd November 2021 (Anneuxre-22). Respondent No.2 instead of making the respondent No.1 recipient liable for the payment of the additional IGST has instead raised the demand of Rs.13.26 crores against the petitioner and on threat of coercion petitioner has been made to pay an amount of Rs.11.27 crores with the balance tax amount of Rs. 1.99 crores to be paid. 6. In these background facts and based on the relevant materials on record learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for an interim protection from any further coercive steps being taken against the petitioner pending adjudication of this dispute. 7. He contends that both respondent Nos. 1 and 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities to seek refund of the voluntary payment of tax made by it on account of differential amount of IGST. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, Mr. P.A.S. Pati submits that statement of facts have been received. Based on that, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 also submits that extension of time limit for export under LUT under 7 Export Invoices have been granted vide letter dated 6th October, 2022 by the competent authority. The decision has been taken strictly within the ambit of Rule 96A (1) (a) of CGST Rules, 2017 since if the request of exporter had not been accepted, the entire IGST foregone by the exporter on the exports made by them under these seven export invoices, would have become liable to be paid forthwith in terms of LUTs furnished by them. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, in particular, relies upon para-10 of the statement of facts, which reads as under: "10. That it is stated that Respondent No. 5 is not the competent authority to take any decision on the applicability or otherwise of the concessional rate of GST availed by M/s ESL Steel Limited (the Supplier) under Notification No. 40/2017- CTR dated 23.10.2017 and Notification 41/2017....