M/S Efficient Automotives LLP vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 62,18,770/- to the Petitioner. This decision was based on the admission by both parties that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, following the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., would benefit pending proceedings, and the Respondents' statement of no objection to the refund. Regarding the claim for interest, the Petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation, which the concerned authority was directed to consider and decide within one month. Similarly, for the refund to be made in cash, the Petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation, which was also to be considered and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Efficient Automotives LLP, filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and its equivalent under the DGST Rules. The Petitioner also sought a refund of Rs. 62,18,770, which was deposited under protest due to an alleged erroneous refund. The parties acknowledged that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., would benefit pending proceedings. The Respondents stated they had no objection to refunding the deposited amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood during the relevant period, was valid, and consequently, whether the Petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 62,18,770 deposited under protest? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was invalid and that the benefit of its omission, as per the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., should apply to their pending case. They sought a direction for the refund of the deposited amount along with interest and in cash. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents, on instructions, stated that they had no objection to the refund of the deposited amount.