IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
TMA International Pvt Ltd & Ors - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2694 of 2019; C.M. No. 26556 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2021
IGST Refund - Writ Petition - Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.), dated 31.10.2016, Circular No. 37/2018-CUSTOMS dated 09.10.2018 - Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017, Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 - IGST refund granted with interest at 7% from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought declaration that certain provisions were ultra vires and unconstitutional, and claimed refund of IGST paid on goods exported during the Transitional Period. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission, subject to verification of duty drawback/CENVAT credit availed by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that none of the petitioners had availed CENVAT credit qua central excise, and only one petitioner had availed CENVAT credit qua service tax. The Court directed refund of IGST to the petitioners with interest at 7% from the date of filing shipping bills till the date of actual refund.
Issues: Validity of certain provisions, verification of duty drawback/CENVAT credit availed by the petitioners, and entitlement to interest on delayed IGST refund.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the verification of duty drawback/CENVAT credit and the entitlement to interest on delayed IGST refund, as well as the principle established in M/s Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, 2019 75 GST 33 (Guj) regarding payment of interest on delayed IGST refund.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to refund IGST to the petitioners, with interest at 7% from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund, not later than 26.04.2021.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - In this writ petition, the following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners:
"a) Declare that Paragraph 11(d) read with 12A(a)(ii) of the Notes and Conditions of the Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.), dated 31.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) [as amended by Notification No. 59/2017-Cus. (NT) dated 29.06.2017 (Annexure P-3) and Notification No. 73/2017-Cus. (NT) dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P- 4)] 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 (Annexure P-7) 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) As a consequence of the above, Direct Respondent Authorities to grant refund of IGST paid on goods exported by the Petitioners during the Transitional Period".
2. Upon notice being issued, a counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 (i.e. the contesting respondent) followed by a rejoinder by the petitioners.
3. The record shows that on 26.11.2019, a detailed order was passed by the Court. Via the order dated 26.11.2019, in effect, the Court agreed with the submission of the petitioners, subject to respondent no.2 verifying as to whether duty drawback/CENVAT credit had been availed of by the petitioners, with regard to Central Excise and Service Tax component.
3.1. It is in this background, that thereafter the matter got adjourned on various dates to enable respondent no.2 to verify this fact.
4. The record shows that a compliance-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 on 25.02.2021. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 05.03.2021 when a fresh direction was issued as there was still, not enough clarity, with regard to the core issue, which was, as to whether or not the petitioners had availed of the duty drawback/CENVAT credit with regard to Central Excise and Service Tax component. Accordingly, respondent no.2 vide order dated 05.03.2021 was directed to file an additional affidavit in terms of paragraph 18 of the order dated 26.11.2019. Paragraph 18 of the aforementioned is extracted hereunder:
"18. In case the petitioners would not have availed the benefit of duty drawback/CENVAT credit of Central Excise and Service Tax component, necessary directions would be issued".
5. The matter was thereafter taken up by the Court on 15.03.2021 when Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, informed the Court that he had received an e-mail dated 11.03.2021 from the concerned officer, which was indicative of the fact that the duty drawback qua the Central Excise had not been availed by the petitioners. Thus, the only other aspect which respondent no.2 was required to examine, was, as to whether the petitioners had availed the duty drawback qua the Service Tax component.
6. It is in this background that the matter was posted for hearing today i.e. 26.03.2021.
7. Given the directions issued on 15.03.2021, respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit dated 24.03.2021. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the affiant has stated the following:
"4. That, accordingly, as per the verification caused by the office of the deponent and the information received from Additional Director General of Systems & Data Management [enclosed as Annexure-I], the deponent most respectfully submits that:
(i) all the petitioners have availed duty drawback.
(ii) none of the petitioners have availed the Cenvat Credit of Central Excise.
(iii) out of all the petitioners, only M/s Inter Trade, Kolkata have availed the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax amounting to Rs.1856/-during the Financial Year 2015-16 and Rs.0 (Nil) during the Financial Year 2016-17 & 2017-18 (upto June 2017)."
7.1. Ba
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to interest at 7% on delayed IGST refund, as well as the verification of duty drawback/CENVAT credit availed by the petitioners.
The court affirmed that tax notifications could be unconstitutional, granting relief in the form of IGST refunds and dictating the payment of interest for delays.
Exporters are entitled to IGST refunds despite claiming higher duty drawback rates, reinforcing the principle of coherent refund applications.
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 a....
Exporters should not be penalized for inadvertent errors made due to unclear regulations during the transition to GST; claims for IGST refunds should be processed if verified as valid.
Refund of IGST on zero-rated supplies is permissible even when a higher drawback is claimed, provided the exporter meets statutory conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.