Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek refund of igst during transitional period. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners argue denial of igst refund is improper. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court references judgment and clarifies circular relevance. (Para 6) |
| 4. court allows petition for igst refund aligned with precedent. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. commissionerates can verify duty drawback claims. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
1. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking declarations that Paragraph 11(d) read with 12A(a)(ii) of the Notes and Conditions of the Notification dated 31st October, 2016, [as amended by Notifications dated 29th June, 2017 and 26th July, 2017], Circular No. 37/2018 dated 09th October, 2018, is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 as well as Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners also seek directions to the Respondents to grant refund of IGST paid on goods exported by the Petitioners during the Transitional Period (July- September, 2017) after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback, along with appropriate interest on such refund from the date of the sh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
