TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : (a) M/s.Vedanta Limited ("Responent") are engaged in the manufacture of copper anodes, cathodes and continuous copper rods for both domestic sale and export. The goods are exported on payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and then the refund of such IGST paid is claimed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 16(3)(b) of IGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. (b) During August 2017, the respondent had exported goods under 71 Shipping Bills covering 152 invoices. An IGST of Rs.9,42,39,026/- (Rupees Ninety four crores forty two lakhs thirty nine thousand and twenty six only) was paid against such export. Out of the said 71 shipping bills and 512 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the said system has to transmit electronically to the system maintained by GSTN, a confirmation that the said invoices have been exported out of India. Rule 96(3) ibid, provides that on receipt of information regarding furnishing of a valid return in FORM GSTR-3B from the GSTN portal, the system designated by the Customs or the proper officer of the Customs, shall process the refund in respect of export of goods and an amount equal to the Integrated Tax paid in respect of the Shipping Bill shall be electronically credited to the bank account mentioned in his registration particulars, as intimated to the Customs Authority. 5. The glitch of the matter is that while the respondent (assessee) has been sanctioned IGST refund of Rs.94,42,39....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent (assessee/writ petitioner) under cover of letters dated 07.01.2019 and 19.02.2019, had requested the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin (appellant herein) to apply the CBIC instruction dated 24.10.2018 and disburse the IGST paid on the exported goods to the tune of Rs.2,02,94,956/-. 10. While things be so, since the Customs did not take any action qua the requests made before them, the respondent (petitioner/assessee) preferred a writ petition before this Court wherein inter alia sought a direction to the respondent for transmitting the data with regard to the IGST paid on goods exported to the Customs ICEGATE portal and to facilitate refund of the IGST paid in light of the Circular No.40/2018-Customs within a prescribed tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has rendered a categorical finding that the prsent case on hand is also similar to that of the problem which was faced by the respondents in similar circumstances. When there is no provision in the electronically managed system, they should have visualised the situation prior to its introduction to do away with these anomalies and provided solution to the same. When the issue of refund like the present one was dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No.20126 of 2018 dated 27.06.2019 (M/s Amit Cotton Industries v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs and Others), the High Court has given a direction to the respondents to refund the IGST paid in regard to the goods exported i.e., '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the amount of IGST as declared in the shipping bill and besides the circular is for only the one time relief and hence, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief. 16(b) It remains to be stated that when there was a revision of price in goods exported under 61 Shipping Bills covered by 442 invoice in respect of which admittedly additional IGST to the tune of Rs.2,02,94,956/- is paid. This was not disputed by the appellants. The goods covering the said amount of IGST is also exported. These two facts are admitted. 17(a) The writ petitioner exports goods on payment of Integrated Goods and Service Tax and when the writ petitioner claims refund of such tax. In the pre GST regime, the statute used the version "Rebate". Under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view thereof as well, it was not open to the Appellant to have disregarded the Circular dated 24.10.2018 and thereby sit on the respondent's refund. 20(b) It is cardinal principle of law that only goods are to be exported and not taxes. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of TMA International Ltd., v. Union of India [2020(35) GSTL 22]. In view thereof as well, inasmuch as there is no dispute as to the fact that the goods were exported and that respondent had paid the disputed amount of IGST, refund of which has been claimed, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have refunded the same forthwith. 20(c) Hence, after perusing the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'....