JUDGMENT :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. The petitioner is engaged in export of Mobile Phones. It received purchase orders for mobile phones from foreign buyers. The petitioner buys the mobile phones through its sister concerned M/s. Anjalli Enterprise, which instructs the vendor to deliver the mobile phones directly to the airports for the purpose of export by M/s. Mobile Shop i.e. the present petitioner.

1.1 The vendor raises the invoice in the name of M/s. Anjali Enterprise in accordance with the instructions, but generates e-way bill with delivery address mentioned as the airport. Both such invoice and e-way bill accompany movement of the right up to the airport. M/s. Anjali Enterprises raises invoices on the petitioner for sale of mobile phones and the petitioner thereafter, files the shipping bills and export the goods after due clearance by the customs authorities.

1.2 The IGST is always paid on the goods under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Exports being zero rated supplies under Section 16 of the IGST Act, the shipping bills filed by the petitioner are treated as refund applications under Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (‘the CGST Rules’ hereinafter).

1.3 The refund is, therefore, processed by the Customs Authorities in accordance with Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner points out with emphasis that the proper officer for determining and adjudicating refund of IGST paid on export is the Customs Authority. It receives consideration for export in foreign exchange.

1.4 On 31.07.2020, as per the case of the petitioner, the search proceedings were conducted by the respondent authorities under the CGST Act at the premise of the petitioner. The petitioner explained the modus operantdi of its business in detail and the employees of the petitioner cooperated with the respondent. At the time of search, the query was raised regarding refund claimed by the petitioner on export. The respondent also demanded the e-way bills in respect of purchases.

1.5 The entire modus of the petitioner was explained of having made the purchases through its sister concern M/s. Anjali Enterprise which in turn instructed the vendor to deliver the goods directly to the airport for the purpose of fulfilling the order of the petitioner. This being a single movement of the goods from the premise of vendor of M/s. Anjali Enterprise to the airport, only one e-way bill was generated by such vendor wherein the delivery address was mentioned as the airport.

1.6 The second e-way bill was insisted by the respondent in respect of purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Anjali Enterprise and in absence thereof, it was construed as the deficiency of documents and the refund of IGST was said to be erroneous on the ground of deficiency of documents. The coercive actions had been threatened by the respondent for this purpose.

1.7 On the very day the respondent submitted a request to the Customs Authorities to detain the cargo of the petitioner which was pending clearance for export at the airport. The Customs Authorities detained the consignment of the petitioner eventually.

1.8 On 02.08.2020, after leaving the premises of the petitioner, the respondent issued a summon to the petitioner for appearing the next day. The respondent further called upon the petitioner to produce the e-way bills in respect of its purchases as well as export documents even though the export file had been seized by the respondent at the time of search proceedings.

1.9 The petitioner requested for adjournment on personal ground on 03.08.2020 and on 04.08.2020 the petitioner submitted a letter to the Customs Authorities requesting to release the goods since the foreign buyer was threatening to cancel further orders. The petitioner had also shown its preparedness to submit the documents, which were necessary.

1.10 It is averred by the petitioner that the Custom Authorities had been satisfied with the documents presented by the petitioner for export and on 07.08.2