M/S. Goldcera International Thru Partner Ravindra P. Agola vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The writ applicants, M/s. Goldcera International and three others, filed a composite writ application seeking a declaration that certain paragraphs of Notification No.131/2016-Cus. (as amended) and Circular No.37/2018-CUSTOMS are ultra vires and unconstitutional. They also sought a direction to grant refund of IGST paid on goods exported during the transitional period, with interest. The Court noted that while a composite writ application by multiple applicants is irregular, it would proceed to decide the matter as the issue was covered by a previous judgment. The respondents were served notice, and the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the issue was covered by the High Court's decision in Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Held
The Court held that the issue raised in the writ application was squarely covered by its previous decision in Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ application. The respondent authorities were directed to process and grant the refund of IGST paid on goods exported by the writ applicants during the transitional period. The refund was to be calculated from the date of the shipping bill until the date of actual refund, along with statutory interest at 6%. The Court ordered this exercise to be completed within three weeks from the date of the order. The rule was made absolute.
Key Issues
1. Whether paragraph 11(d) read with 12A(a)(ii) of the Notes and Conditions of Notification No.131/2016-Cus. (as amended) are ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017, and consequently unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether Circular No.37/2018-CUSTOMS is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017, and consequently unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the impugned notification and circular were ultra vires the relevant GST provisions and unconstitutional. The respondent authorities, through their counsel, conceded that the issue was covered by the High Court's decision in Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and did not present any counter-arguments.
Sections Cited
Section 16, Section 54, Rule 96
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of Rule for and on C/SCA/2200/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022 behalf of the respondents.
By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the following writs of certiorari and / or declaration or any other writ, direction or order in the nature thereof: a) Declare that paragraph 11(d) read with 12A(a)(ii) of the Notes and Conditions of the Notification No.131/2016-Cus. (N.T.) dated 31.10.2016 (Annexure-B) [as amended by Notification No.59/2017-Cus.
(NT)
dated
2017 (Annexure-C) and Notification No.73/207-Cus. (NT) dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure-D) are (i) ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017, & (ii) unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India & Quash the same; b) Declare that Circular No.37/2018-CUSTOMS dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure-H) is (i) ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017, and (ii) unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India & Quash the same. c) Direct Respondent Authorities to grant refund of IGST paid on goods exported by the Petitioners during the transitional period, with interest from the date of the shipping bill till the date of actual refund; d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
We take notice of the fact that there are in all four writ C/SCA/2200/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022 applicants. The four individual writ applicants could not have preferred a composite writ application. Although the reliefs which they are seeking may be common yet each of the writ applicants should have preferred a separate writ application and should have paid the Court fees accordingly. We could have declined to entertain this writ application on this ground itself, however, we propose to dispose of this writ application as the issue raised therein is squarely covered. We are informed that the Court fees has been separately paid with respect to each of the writ applicants.
While issuing Notice, this Court passed the following order on 09.02.2022. “We have heard Ms. Sakshi Singhal, the learned counsel Email.” C/SCA/2200/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022
Today, when the matter was taken up for further hearing, Mr. Sharma, the learned senior standing counsel submitted that he had a talk with the Authority concerned and he fairly submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), which has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, this writ application is allowed.
The respondent Authorities are directed to process and grant refund of IGST paid on the goods exported by the writ applicants during transitional period from the date of the shipping bill till the date of actual refund with 6% statutory interest.
Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of three weeks from today. Rule is made absolute. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Y.N. VYAS
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.