The bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain noted that the petitioner had the right to receive a refund of the IGST paid on the specific exports in question.
They affirmed that this particular case did not involve the petitioner seeking a dual advantage, meaning they were not attempting to claim both the IGST refund and a higher duty drawback simultaneously.
Brief Facts:
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India primarily prays for a relief that the Petitioner be granted a refund of IGST paid in relation to the exports undertaken by it of goods which are described to be insulated cables to a party based in Myanmar, namely, M/s. Khin Maung Tum & Brothers Co. Ltd.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that they had submitted a GST Return using Form No.GSTR-1 for the month of August 2017. However, they mistakenly included an incorrect invoice number and port code for their export transactions. Upon realizing this error, the petitioner promptly filed an amended or corrected return, making necessary changes to the tax invoice by correcting the invoice number and port code.
Further, the petitioner argued that despite raising multiple complaints, they did not receive any response from the respondents. In relation to their IGST refund, the petitioner lodged a complaint through the Central Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS). The petitioner's complaint was acknowledged, and they received an email stating that their grievance had been resolved. The reason provided for the resolution was that the petitioner had already obtained a higher duty drawback on their exports based on the export invoice and corresponding shipping bill in question. The petitioner claimed that the reasons given for the rejection were incorrect. On October 9, 2020, the petitioner filed a new complaint, providing further explanation and clarification that they had not received any higher amount of drawback in relation to the shipping bill.
Nevertheless, the petitioner received another email from CPGRAMS stating that the grievance had been marked as resolved. The petitioner argued that their exports were unquestionably classified as zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of the IGST Act. Therefore, based on the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the GGST Rules, the petitioner believed that denying them the refund would be contrary to the clear legal position.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner's situation falls under the category of zero-rated supply according to Section 16(3) of the IGST Act. Rule 96 of the CST Rules, which pertains to the refund of integrated tax paid on goods or services exported from India, is now applicable in this case. The court ruled that the petitioner has the right to receive a refund of the IGST paid on their exports. It was evident that the petitioner was not seeking any double benefit, meaning they were not claiming both the IGST refund and a higher duty drawback simultaneously.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court allowed the present writ petition and respondents are directed to refund to the Petitioner the IGST paid by the Petitioner in respect of the goods exported
Case Title: Sunlight Cable Industries vs The Commissioner of Customs
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.284 OF 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Prathamesh Gargate
Advocate for the Respondent: - Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
