Refund applications for exported goods are not subject to proof of payment within 180 days, as mandated by current legislation and circulars.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:

(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, or a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the appellate order dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure 8) and the refund rejection order in Form RFD-06 dated 16.5.2023 along with a detailed order dated 15.5.2023 (Annexure - 6 and 6/1) since the rejection of refund of the Petitioner is based in extraneous grounds which are beyond the requirements of the CGST Act, the CGST Rules and the binding circulars issued thereunder.

(ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, or a writ in the nature in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,23,22,617 along with the stipulated interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(iii) For any other and further appropriate writ (s) or direction(s) or order(s) this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.

2. The brief fact of the case as it appears from the pleadings is that the petitioner-Company manufactures steel and sponge iron for which it requires coal as a raw material. The petitioner purchases coal and pays Compensation Cess under Section 8 (2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and thus the petitioner avails Input Tax Credit of Cess. Petitioner’s-Company also export goods under letter of undertaking without payment of tax as a result, there is an accumulation of ITC of Cess. On 30.01.2023, refund application was filed by the petitioner-Company for the period F.Y.2021-2022 along with all relevant documents for refund of Rs. 1,23,22,617/-. However, on 24.04.2023 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-Company why not the refund application filed by the petitioner- Company be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately filed the reply to the show cause notice; however, the refund application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of non- furnishing of documents/certificates. Thereafter, petitioner also filed an appeal, but the same was also rejected.

3. The stand taken by the respondents that the order impugned is an appealable order has no meaning in view of the fact that the “GST Tribunal” is still not functional.The Respondents further tried to defend the order impugned by reiterating the grounds taken in the impugned order and contended that the petitioner has attached samples of invoices showing multiple bills issued by it which shows the export taking place. Since as per the petitioner, it had exported the goods on the basis of letters of undertaking and as such applied for a refund of accumulated cess for a sum of Rs. 1,23,22,617/-, thereafter the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was asked to provide proof of receipt of payment from exporter within 180 days, proof showing the goods have been exported outside India within a period of 90 days from the date of export invoices, a self-declaration that the assessee has not been prosecuted, undertaking in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Compensation of CESS ACT and statement in terms of Section 43(c) of 2019 Circular. However, the petitioner did not submitted appropriate reply/documents.

4. After perusing the impugned order of rejection of the refund application and the stand in the counter affidavit, it appears that on five grounds the said application for refund has been rejected. For brevity the same is quoted hereinbelow:

(i) Non-furnishing of receipt of payment within 180 days of expo