M/S Gajanand Enterprise vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs, Mundra
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 immediate sanction of the refund, amounting to Rs. 16,80,817/- in one of the petitions, and interest at 9% from the date of shipping bills until the refund was paid. The respondent authorities, including the Principal Commissioner of Customs, were directed to respond. The core of the dispute revolved around the sanction of IGST refunds for exports made against specific shipping bills. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner was constrained to approach the High Court due to the alleged illegal withholding of the refund by the authorities.
Held
The Court held that the issue of sanctioning IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies is no longer res integra, citing two previous pronouncements of the Gujarat High Court: Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs and Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India. The Court noted that the latter judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the Union of India's Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court's order specifically mentioned a clear finding of fact by the High Court that the respondent had claimed IGST export refund only to the extent of the customs component, and found no error in this finding. Consequently, all writ applications were allowed. The respondents were directed to sanction the respective IGST refunds for exported goods with 6% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills until the date of actual refund. The Court also directed that if any differential duty had not been paid in any of the applications, it should be paid at the earliest.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to sanction the refund of IGST paid on goods exported as 'Zero Rated Supplies' (turning on the provisions related to refunds of IGST on exports). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the withheld IGST refund amount and, if so, at what rate and from what date (turning on the provisions related to interest on delayed refunds). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the IGST refund for zero-rated supplies is a statutory right and that the authorities have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the same. They relied on pronouncements of the Gujarat High Court in Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs and Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India. The petitioner also sought interest at 9% on the delayed refund. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the context implies that the revenue was withholding the refund, leading to the petitioner's challenge.
Sections Cited
Section 16, Section 54, Section 16(3), Section 54(3)
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.