9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1727 - HC - GSTRefund of IGST on exported goods - Violation of the impugned Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules - 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) - benefit of Notification No.78/2017 by the Customs Department as well as the Notification No.79/2017 - HELD THAT - The perusal of the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 clearly contain an inference drawn by the officer without any indication in the previous notices issued to the petitioner about the amount of refund that has been claimed and it being subjected to interest and penalty at what rate. The officer has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the bill entry submitted by the petitioner that during the tax period of claim of refund he had taken the benefit of the Notification dated 13.10.2017 and therefore wrongfully claimed the refund of Rs. 6, 88, 11, 571/- which is in contravention with Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules 2017. Had the petitioner being issued a show cause notice as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 73 and determination of this show cause notice pursuant to the representation/stand adopted by the petitioner all the issues pertaining to the applicability of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules 2017 would have been open for consideration by the concerned officer. However since the impugned order has straight away drawn a conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly availed refund which is liable to be recovered from it along with interest and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act 2017 in absence of adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2017 to be read along with Rules 2017 we are satisfied that the necessary procedure to be followed before the demand is raised and the recovery is ordered has not been adhered with. Ms Asha Desai learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the Revenue does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter and she also does not dispute the legal position that if a statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done only in that manner and in no other way. In the wake of the aforesaid without touching into the other issues which are raised in the petition particularly the validity of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules 2017 as well as its applicability in the case of the petitioner and by keeping this issue open we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 by giving liberty to the Revenue to follow the procedure under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act of 2017 to be initiated by the issuance of show cause notice pursuant to which the petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity to submit its representation which shall be subjected to adjudication by the proper officer in accordance with law. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity and Applicability of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, introduced by Notification dated 09.10.2018, clarifies that persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports should not have received supplies exempted under certain notifications, except for capital goods under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme. The petitioner, being an EOU, imports raw materials duty-free and also procures inputs domestically, paying IGST on exports and claiming refunds accordingly. Court's Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner challenges the validity of Rule 96(10) and its applicability to its transactions. However, the Court refrained from deciding on the validity or retrospective effect of the Rule, keeping those issues open for adjudication by the proper authority. Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner claimed refunds of IGST paid on exported goods, but the Revenue alleged that such refunds were wrongly claimed in violation of Rule 96(10), as the petitioner had received supplies on which suppliers had availed exemption notifications. The Court observed that this factual and legal issue was not properly adjudicated due to procedural lapses. Treatment of Competing Arguments: While the petitioner argued against the Rule's validity and applicability, the Court did not address these points substantively, focusing instead on procedural compliance. Conclusion: The issue of validity and applicability of Rule 96(10) remains open and must be adjudicated after following the proper statutory procedure. Issue 2: Procedural Compliance in Passing the Impugned Order under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act Legal Framework: Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act provide the procedure for determination and recovery of tax not paid or erroneously refunded. Section 73 deals with cases without fraud or wilful misstatement and mandates issuance of a show cause notice specifying the amount claimed, an opportunity to represent, and then issuance of a demand order. Section 74 deals with cases involving fraud or wilful misstatement. Rule 142 of the CGST Rules prescribes the format for such notices and orders. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 was issued without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 73. The notices issued to the petitioner were not in the form of show cause notices; they did not specify the amount of refund claimed to be wrongly availed nor the interest or penalty proposed. The impugned order directly concluded that the petitioner had wrongly claimed a refund of Rs. 6,88,11,571/- and imposed interest and penalty without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Key Evidence and Findings: Communications dated 19.10.2022 and 07.11.2023 requested information from the petitioner regarding IGST refunds and related documents but did not constitute proper show cause notices. The petitioner complied by furnishing documents, but the Revenue proceeded to pass the order without issuing a formal notice and providing an opportunity for representation. Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized that statutory provisions prescribing a particular procedure must be strictly followed. The failure to issue a proper show cause notice and to consider the petitioner's representations rendered the impugned order non-compliant with the law. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the procedural lapses or the legal principle that statutory procedure must be followed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim or Rule 96(10) applicability due to this procedural defect. Conclusion: The impugned order is quashed and set aside for failure to comply with the mandatory procedure under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Issue 3: Retrospective or Prospective Effect of Rule 96(10) and Continuation of Adjudication after its Omission Court's Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submissions regarding whether the Rule applies retrospectively or prospectively and whether proceedings can continue after the Rule's omission from 08.10.2024. However, these issues were not adjudicated, as the Court found it unnecessary to decide them in light of the procedural infirmities in the impugned order. Conclusion: These issues remain open for determination by the proper authority after adherence to the statutory procedure. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
Core principles established include the mandatory adherence to statutory procedure for demand and recovery of tax under the CGST Act, and the necessity of issuing a proper show cause notice specifying amounts and grounds before passing an order of recovery. The Court preserved the petitioner's right to challenge the validity and applicability of Rule 96(10) at the appropriate stage after due process. Final determinations:
|
