Global Liners Through Partner Vinod Devjibhai Siroya vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's representations, made in 2019-2020, had not been considered on merit. The Court observed that the primary prayer was for the consideration of these representations. In light of the submission by the learned advocate for respondent No. 7 that the matter could be disposed of in limine, the Court directed respondents No. 6 and 7, or any other competent authority, to consider the representations made by the petitioner within eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. Once the consideration was finalized, the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner at the earliest. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but focused on ensuring its timely consideration. The issue of compensation for delayed payment was implicitly addressed by directing the consideration of the refund claim.

Facts

The petitioner, Global Liners, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing cylinder liners and sleeves, approached the Gujarat High Court by way of a Special Civil Application. The petitioner sought directions for the respondent authorities to process its claim for refund of integrated tax paid on zero-rated supply for five shipping transactions exported between October 2018 and May 2019. The petitioner had made two representations to respondents No. 6 and 7 on August 14, 2019, and December 17, 2019, requesting the refund to be deposited into its bank account linked to its existing GSTIN. The petitioner contended that the non-action by the respondents had compelled it to approach the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to process the petitioner's claim for refund of integrated tax paid on zero-rated supplies for five shipping transactions exported between October 2018 and May 2019, and deposit the same with interest, as per Circular No. 12/2018, 25/2019, and Public Notice No. 9/2021. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that its representations dated August 14, 2019, and December 17, 2020, had not been considered on merit. It sought directions for the processing of its refund claim, deposit of the amount with 9% interest into its bank account, and consideration of its application in accordance with the specified circulars and public notice. The petitioner also sought compensation for delayed payment. Revenue's Arguments: The learned advocate for respondent No. 7 submitted that the matter could be disposed of in limine, with the concerned authority considering the representation within eight weeks from the receipt of the order.