M/S Shri Prempurji Granimarbo Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. It held that while the petitioner is registered and carries on business in Rajasthan, this fact alone does not create a cause of action within Rajasthan for the non-grant of refund by Customs Authorities at the port of export. The Court emphasized that the refund claim is processed by the Customs system or Proper Officer of Customs at the port of export, as stipulated in Rule 96(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner's reliance on Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST was deemed misplaced as the relevant sub-rule it pertained to had been deleted. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously raised grievances with the Customs authorities at the ports of export. Therefore, in the absence of pleadings demonstrating a cause of action or part of a cause of action accruing in Rajasthan for the non-grant of refund, and given that the refund application is to be dealt with by the Customs Authorities of the export port, the petition was dismissed. The Court explicitly stated that it did not decide on the entitlement to the refund itself, as the petition was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Facts

M/s Shri Prempurji Granimarbo Private Limited, an exporter of natural stones registered in Rajasthan, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the refund of Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) amounting to Rs. 17,90,279/- for the period July 2017 to September 2017. The refund was allegedly denied because the petitioner had claimed a higher rate of duty drawback due to a human error while filing shipping bills. The petitioner had raised grievances with Customs authorities at Mundra, Tamil Nadu, and Hyderabad. The respondents, including the Union of India and Rajasthan GST authorities, argued that the refund pertains to ports of export and raised objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that being registered and assessed in Rajasthan, a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Rajasthan High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering the refund pertains to IGST on goods exported from ports outside Rajasthan? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that its registration with Rajasthan GST Authorities, permanent establishment in Rajasthan, and assessment within the State confer territorial jurisdiction on the Rajasthan High Court. They relied on Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST, suggesting Deputy or Assistant Commissioners of Central Tax are proper officers for Rule 96, and cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in Awadhkrupta Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, where an SLP against it was dismissed. They also pointed to an order from the Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, sanctioning a similar refund for August 2017. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the refund application should be dealt with by the Customs Authorities at the relevant port of export, and the Rajasthan authorities have no role in the IGST refund. They raised objections to the territorial jurisdiction.