Aniket Exports vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the present petition should be allowed in the same terms as the case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs. The reasoning was based on the established precedent where a similar inadvertent error in mentioning the drawback claim did not bar the refund of IGST paid on exports. The Court found that the petitioner's claim for refund was valid, and the error was a procedural oversight that should not lead to the denial of their legitimate claim. The ratio decidendi is that procedural irregularities, if minor and not affecting the substantive claim, should not be a ground to deny legitimate refunds, especially when supported by judicial precedent. The respondents were directed to refund the IGST amount claimed by the petitioner within four weeks, along with 7% interest.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Aniket Exports, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for the refund of IGST paid on exports made from August 2017, along with applicable interest. The refund was reportedly withheld because the petitioner had erroneously mentioned the drawback claim under column A instead of column B. A similar issue was previously adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, where the Court had directed the refund of IGST paid on exported goods with 7% simple interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of IGST paid on exports, despite an inadvertent error in mentioning the drawback claim under the wrong column (A instead of B)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the error was a clerical mistake and should not disentitle them from the refund of IGST paid on exports. They relied on the precedent set in the case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, where a similar issue was resolved in favour of the exporter. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent department stated that they had nothing to add and did not dispute the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned judgment.