Harit Exports Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the claim of the Petitioner is maintainable in law, taking note of the consensus arrived at the bar and the statements made in the reply filed by the Respondents. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing a direction in terms of prayer clause (a). This prayer sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith sanction the refund of Rs.30,13,235/- in terms of Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, along with applicable interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for the delay in sanctioning the refund. The Court directed that this order be implemented within six weeks. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

Harit Exports Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, is an exporter that filed a writ petition seeking a direction to refund the IGST component after deducting the drawback. The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Gujarat Nippon International Private Limited Vs. Union of India, which held that the department is liable to refund the amount with interest after deducting the drawback. The respondents, Union of India and others, admitted in their reply that the department had accepted the Delhi High Court's decision. The respondents' counsel stated they had no objection if the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the petitioner's prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the IGST component after deducting the drawback, in accordance with the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in Gujarat Nippon International Private Limited Vs. Union of India (supra)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their claim for refund is maintainable based on the Delhi High Court's decision in Gujarat Nippon International Private Limited, which established the department's liability to refund the amount with 7% interest after deducting the drawback. They sought a similar order for their case. Respondents' Argument: The respondents admitted that the Delhi High Court's decision in Gujarat Nippon International Private Limited had been accepted by the department. They further stated they had no objection if the writ petition was disposed of by issuing a direction in terms of the petitioner's prayer clause (a).