TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - "D") and Notification No. 73/2017-Cus. (NT) dated 26.07.2017 (EXHIBIT - "E")] 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 (EXHIBIT - "J") 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) Direct Respondent Authorities to grant refund of IGST paid on goods exported by the Petitioner during the Trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the contentions as urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner would be entitled to the refund of IGST paid by the Petitioner during the transitional period, after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback, in terms of what has been placed on record at Exhibit-G (at page 120 of the Petition). 4. We find from the Reply Affidavit that, on the factual matrix, no dispute has been raised in regard to the dis-entitlement of the Petitioner in regard to the quantum as described, in the Shipping Bills itself, which, in terms of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules would amount to applications for refund. 5. We may refer to the observations of this Court in similar circumstances in the case of Satyen Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n these circumstances, Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, which provides for refund of integrated tax paid on goods or services exported out of India had become applicable. On this, there is no dispute. 10. In such circumstances, the only question, which is required to be determined is as to whether the Respondents are correct in their assertion that in making the refund as claimed by the Petitioner the Petitioner had claimed duty drawback at the higher rate of the IGST refund as seen from the reply received by the Petitioner from the CPRAMS. It appears that there is no factual foundation for the Respondents to come to such conclusion and, in fact, such a conclusion is contrary to the record, subject matter of consideration by the authorities. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/2016-Cus. (N.T.) dated 31/10/2016, if the rate indicated in the columns (4) i.e. higher duty drawback and (6) i.e. lower duty drawback are the same, then it shall necessarily imply that the same pertains only to the Customs component and is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of the CENVET facility or not. 10. The petitioner had exported Rope Making Machine HSN Code 84794000 which attracts the same rate under both the columns (4) & (6) respectively i.e. 2 per cent. Thus it is evident that the petitioner has claimed drawback of the customs component only for their exports and there arises no question of denying the refund of IGST. The rationale for not allowing the refund of IGST for those exporters, who claim hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'B' for the product exported by the petitioner is the same. The said fact is not disputed by the respondents. It is only on technical ground that affixing suffix 'A' claim of the petitioner is denied. The case of the petitioner is similar to the one decided by Gujarat High Court in the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and confirmed by the Apex Court. 7. In view of the above, the petitioner succeeds. Respondents shall sanction the refund towards IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. supply made by shipping. Of course, in case, if there is no other impediment, statutory interest shall follow." 13. Also in Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International vs. Union of India, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, following ....