1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P(MD).No.4562 of 2022

M/S.Abi Technologies,

Rep.by its Authorised Signatory,

Shri.R.Seenivasan,

No.18, K.R.Puram,

Avarampalyam Road,

Ganapathy (PO),

Coimbatore-641 006.

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,

IGST refunds,

Tuticorin Customs House,

New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin.

...Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ

of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to sanction their

refund claims of Rs.24,72,018/- pertaining to the exports

made during July 2017, September 2017 and October 2017

within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Natarajan

For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijaykarthikeyan

Senior Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a

Mandamus to direct the respondent to sanction a sum of

Rs.24,72,018/- as refund on the exports made by the

petitioner during July, 2017, September, 2017 and October,

2017.

1/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

2.It is the specific case of the petitioner that

though the petitioner had correctly declared the details

in the monthly returns in Form GSTR-1 regarding the

exports made by the petitioner on payment of tax by

debiting the input tax credit, a mistake was committed by

the petitioner in GSTR-3B under Rule 61(5) of the CGST

Rules, 2017.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the outward supplies ie., exports would have qualified as

a zero rated supply and therefore, the petitioner should

have filled the details in Form GSTR-3B in column 3.1 (b).

Instead, the petitioner by mistake has given the details

of the export as outward taxable supply (other than zero

rated, nil rated and exempted).

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that similar mistake was made by the petitioner

for all the three months, as a result of which though the

petitioner has exported goods on payment of tax, the

refund of integrated tax on exports under the provisions

of the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 has been denied

to the petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has placed reliance on the circular

issued by the C.B.I. & C., GST Policy Wing, in Circular

No.45/19/2018-GST, dated 30.05.2018, wherein it has been

clarified as under:-

“4.Application for refund of integrated tax

paid on export of services and supplies made to a

Special Economic Zone developer or a Special

Economic Zone unit:-

4.1. It has been represented that while filing

the return in FORM GSTR-3B for a given tax period,

certain registered persons committed errors in

declaring the export of services on payment of

integrated tax or zero rated supplies made to a

Special Economic Zone developer or a Special

Economic Zone unit on payment of integrated tax.

They have shown such supplies in the Table under

column 3.1(a) instead of showing them in column

3.1(b) of FORM GSTR-3B whilst they have shown the

correct details in Table 6A or 6B of FORM GSTR-1

for the relevant tax period and duly discharged

their tax liabilities. Such registered persons are

unable to file the refund application in FORM GST

RFD-01A for refund of integrated tax paid on the

export of services or on supplies made to a SEZ

developer or a SEZ unit on the GST common portal

2/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3

because of an inbuilt validation check in the

system which restricts the refund amount claimed

(integrated tax/cess) to the amount of integrated

tax/cessmentioned under column 3.1(b) of FORM

GSTR-3B (zero rated supplies) filed for the

corresponding tax period.

4.2 In this regard, it is clarified that for

the tax periods commencing from 01.07.2017 to

31.03.2