Jindal Drugs PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Secretary And Ors.
Held
The Court acknowledged the agreed position between the parties that the 15 shipping bills required amendment or rectification for the drawback claim to be sustained. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the respondent authorities under the proviso to Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court granted this liberty, making it clear that the issue of the application of the proviso to Section 149 to the facts of the case would be considered in accordance with the law by the authority to whom the application for rectification is made. The petitioner stated they would file the rectification application within 7 days, and the respondents were directed to decide it expeditiously. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
Facts
The petitioner, Jindal Drugs Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of IGST paid on manufactured goods exported under 15 shipping bills. The refund was claimed by way of drawback. During the proceedings, it became an agreed position that for the drawback claim to be sustained, the 15 shipping bills under which the goods were exported would need to be amended or rectified. The petitioner contended that the mistake in the shipping bills was an inadvertent error. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the respondent authorities under the proviso to Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, for rectification of the shipping bills.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of IGST paid on exported goods, contingent upon the rectification of 15 shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the errors in the shipping bills were inadvertent and sought liberty to approach the respondent authorities for rectification under the proviso to Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to enable their drawback claim. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that it was an agreed position between the parties that the shipping bills would have to be amended/rectified for the drawback claim to be sustained. No specific argument was recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.
Sections Cited
Section 149
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Mugdha 24-WP 1531-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1531 OF 2019 Jindal Drugs Private Limited .. Petitioner. v/s. The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents. Prakash Shah a/w Mihir Mehta I/b PDS Legal, advocates for the petitioner. Anusha Amin a/w Jitendra Mishra, advocate for respondent No.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, &
N.J.JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2019. P.C:
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the RespondentsCustoms to grant the petitioner a refund of the IGST paid in accordance with the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act. The refund is sought by claiming drawback on manufactured goods exported under 15 shipping bills.
After the matter was argued for sometime, prima facie it was an agreed position between the parties that before a claim for, drawback can be sustained, 15 shipping bills under which the goods have been exported would have to be necessarily amended/rectified. This mistake in the shipping bills according to the pet
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.