M/S Raj Water Technology (Guj) PVT. LTD. vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Original PDF →Facts
The writ applicant, M/s R P Exim, filed multiple writ applications before the Gujarat High Court challenging the withholding of IGST refunds for goods exported, classified as 'Zero Rated Supplies'. The petitioner sought the sanction of IGST refunds aggregating to Rs. 16,80,817/- related to specific shipping bills and also prayed for interest at 9% per annum on the withheld refund amount from the date of the shipping bills until the refund was paid. The respondent authorities are the Principal Commissioner of Customs and others. The matter was heard analogously with other similar writ applications due to common issues.
Held
The Court allowed all the writ applications. It held that the respondents are directed to sanction the respective refunds of IGST paid in respect of the goods exported, which are classified as 'Zero Rated Supplies'. The Court also directed the payment of simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the refund amount, calculated from the date of the shipping bills until the date of the actual refund. The Court noted that if any differential duty has not been paid in any of the captioned writ applications, the same shall be paid at the earliest. The Court relied on its previous pronouncements in Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs and Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India, and importantly, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Union of India's appeal against Awadkrupa Plastomech, which affirmed the High Court's finding that the respondent had claimed IGST export refund only to the extent of the customs component.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to sanction the refund of IGST paid on goods exported as 'Zero Rated Supplies' (Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017 and relevant export provisions)? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the withheld IGST refund amount and at what rate? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the IGST paid on zero-rated supplies (exports) should be refunded. They argued that the withholding of the refund by the respondent authorities was arbitrary and illegal, necessitating their approach to the High Court. They sought immediate sanction of the refund and interest on the delayed payment. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the Supreme Court's order in a related matter indicates that the refund claimed was only to the extent of the customs component, suggesting a potential dispute regarding the refund amount or eligibility.
Sections Cited
Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2 For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application NO.6752 of 2020 is treated as the lead matter. 3 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: C/SCA/6752/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2022 “A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition; B. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition. C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to immediately sanction the refund of IGST aggregating to Rs.16,80,817/- paid in regard to the goods exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ made vide aforesaid shipping bills mentioned in para 5.6 hereinabove; D. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 9% to the petitioner herein on the amount of refund of IGST mentioned hereinabove from the date of shipping bills up till the date on which the amount of refund is paid to the petitioner herein, as the same is arbitrarily and illegally withheld by the respondent authorities. E. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant an ex-parte, ad interim order in favour of the petitioner herein in terms of prayer clause ‘C’ and ‘D’ hereinabove; F. Since the petitioner are constrained to approach Your Lordships by way of this petition only because of illegal act of respondent authorities, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay a cost of this litigation to the petitioner herein; G. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/(s) that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice in favor of the petitioner.” 4
We have heard Mr. D. K. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents. 5 The short point involved in the present writ application is with regard to the sanction of the refund of IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ made in connection with the shipping bills. 6 The issue is no longer res integra in view of two pronouncements of this High Court (i) in the case of Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal C/SCA/6752/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2022 Commissioner of Customs [2019 (29) GSTL 200 (Guj)] and (ii) Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India [2021 (46) GSTL 31 (Guj)]. 7 We take notice of the fact that Awadkrupa Plastomech (supra) was challenged by the Union of India before the Supreme Court. Leave was granted, and ultimately, the appeal of the Union came to be dismissed. We quote the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7095 of 2021 decided on 30th July 2021 as follows: “1 There is a clear finding of fact which has been recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 15 December 2020 that the respondent had claimed an IGST export refund only to the extent of the customs component. We see no error in the finding of the High Court. 2 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.” 8 In view of the aforesaid, all the writ applications succeed and are hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction the respective refunds of the IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ with 6% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund. It goes without saying that in any of the captioned writ applications, if the differential duty has not been paid, the same shall be paid at the earliest. All the writ applications stand disposed of accordingly. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) CHANDRESH
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.