AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties have jointly requested for taking up this matter for final hearing at admission stage and, hence, this petition is taken for for final disposal at admission stage. 2. Rule. Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Prinank Lodha waives service of notice of rule for respondents. 3. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 be quashed and set aside and thereby the respondent be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 23,09,100/- with interest and with consequential benefit. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under: 4.1 It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 is holding GST Registr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could not reduce the turnover and GST liability as there were no outward supplies during the said month and subsequent month. 4.3 The petitioner, therefore, filed refund claim on 03.09.2020 as prescribed under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner filed a refund claim of Rs. 23,09,100/- for the amount paid in excess as IGST in terms of the clarification issued under Circular dated 13.04.2020. Thereafter, the respondent issued deficiency memo, to which, the petitioner filed all relevant documents and uploaded claim through GST portal. 4.4 It is further stated that the respondent did not accept the explanation furnished by the petitioner and issued show cause notice dated 15.04.2021 as to why the refund claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantial benefit cannot be denied on the ground of technicalities or procedural lapses. 8. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Share Medical Care Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 573 as well as in case of Bonanzo Engineering & Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 771. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Priyank Lodha appearing for the respondents has opposed this petition and referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. Learned Standing Counsel would mainly contend that the Assistant Commissioner has denied the refund cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said condition and, therefore, the respondent authority has rightly rejected the refund claim of the petitioner. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 10. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through material placed on record. 11. On perusal of the notification No. 41/2017 integrated tax (rate) which has been placed on record by the petitioner, it pertains to the benefits to be availed on fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. There are in all 9 conditions in the said notification. Condition no.(ii) which reads as under: "(ii) the registered recipient shall export the said goods within a period of 90 days from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that amount paid by him under the Notification dated 1.3.1988 requires to be taken for the purpose of computing the aggregate value of the clearances under the notification No. 175/86-CE. In our view, merely because the assessee, maybe, by mistake pays duty on the goods which are exempted from such payment, does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for duty under the Act. Secondly, merely because the assessee has not claimed any refund on the duty paid by him would not come in the way of claiming benefit of the Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.86." 14. In view of the above, we cannot sustain the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1352/2002-B, dated 25.10.2002." 14. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex....