The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner is entitled to an IGST refund for zero-rated supply exports under the relevant provisions of the IGST Act and CGST Act, despite allegations of a higher duty drawback.

JUDGMENT :

(G.S. Kulkarni, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties heard finally.

2. 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.

3. The Petitioner has contended that such claim of the Petitioner, which is for an amount of Rs. 21,41,451/-, has been denied by Respondent No.2, which was legitimately due to the Petitioner, being a zero rated supply in terms of Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“IGST Act”) read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act) and Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“CGST Rules”).

4. The Petitioner has contended that on 19th December 2017, the Petitioner had filed a GST Return in Form No.GSTR-1 for the month of August 2017, inadvertently mentioning an incorrect Invoice No. and Port Code in respect of export transaction made vide Tax Invoice No. SUN/03/2017-18 and corresponding Shipping Bill No.8360082. On realizing such a mistake, on 22nd February 2018, the Petitioner filed an amended/corrected Return for the month of January 2018 in Form No.GSTR-1 amending particulars with respect to the said Tax Invoice No. SUN/03/2017-18 correcting the invoice number and the Port Code. Consequent thereto, on 9th January 2019, the Petitioner submitted before Respondent No.2 an Annexure in the prescribed format establishing concordance between the Tax Invoice and Shipping Bill in pursuance of circulars of the Department of Revenue (Central Board of Excise and Customs). After such compliances, on 15th March 2019, the Petitioner made an application to Respondent No.2 requesting to release the refund of IGST amount. Also a Certificate of Amendment issued by Respondent No.1 amending Shipping Bill No.8360082 dated 24th March 2019 came to be submitted.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that as the CGST refund was not being made, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 29th August 2019 to the Commissioner of GST, Daman Commissionerate. The Additional Commissioner, CGST & CE, Daman Commissionaire, in turn addressed a letter to Commissioner of GST dated 24th September 2019, requesting to look into the application made by the Petitioner. Also the Petitioner, thereafter, re-submitted the refund documents, namely, the Tax Invoice, Shipping Bill, GST Forms, etc. Also a Certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant certifying the Petitioner’s export transaction vide Shipping Bill No.8360082 came to be submitted by the Petitioner.

6. The Petitioner has contended that, however, despite all such compliances, there was no response from the Respondents. On such backdrop, on 26th September 2020, the Petitioner lodged a grievance in regard to the IGST refund with the Central Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System (“CPGRAMS”). The Petitioner’s grievance was acknowledged. The Petitioner received an e-mail dated 7th October 2020 that the Petitioner’s grievance has been disposed on the ground that the Petitioner had availed a higher duty drawback on its exports under the said Export Invoice and corresponding Shipping Bill. On such backdrop, as according to the Petitioner the reasons for rejection were not correct the Petitioner submitted a fresh grievance on 9th October 2020, justifying and clarifying that it had not realized any higher amount of drawback against the said Shipping Bill. However, by e-mail of the CPGRAMS dated 5th November 2020, the Petitioner again received a communication that the grievance of the Petitioner has been closed. It is on such backdrop, the Petitioner is before the Court praying that the decision to close the case of the Petitioner on IGST refund be quashed and set aside and also the Respondents