2024 (5) TMI 254 - HC - GST

Refund claim - determination of the turn over for the purpose of refund - Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - HELD THAT - The issue can be re-examined in the light of the circular No 197/09/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023 the impugned order is set aside and the case remitted back to the second respondent to pass orders afresh on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the paragraph 3 of the above circular. This exercise may be carried out by the second respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a writ petition for a Certiorarified Mandamus regarding the refund sanction/rejection order, interpretation of Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and the impact of Circular No.197/09/2023-GST on the refund claim.

Interpretation of Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules:
The petitioner sought a refund on exports made, citing a clarification issued by the Principal Commissioner (GST) in Circular No.197/09/2023-GST regarding the calculation of "adjusted total turnover" under sub-rule (4) of Rule 89 of CGST Rules. The clarification highlighted the importance of considering the value of goods exported out of India for calculating the "adjusted total turnover." The petitioner argued that a similar refund had been allowed for a subsequent period based on this clarification.

Contention of the Respondents:
The Government Advocate for the respondents countered the petitioner's argument by referring to Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules and Notification No.14/2022, which inserted an explanation in the rules. The respondents maintained that there was no merit in the petitioner's challenge based on the new explanation.

Judgment and Remand:
The court, after considering the submissions, decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed the second respondent to re-examine the issue in light of the Circular No.197/09/2023-GST and the clarification provided in paragraph 3 of the circular. The second respondent was instructed to pass orders afresh within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. As a result, the writ petition was allowed with no costs imposed.