9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is an exporter of cotton. During September, 2017, he exported cotton by way of seven shipping bills and paid Rs. 4,80,355/- towards IGST. 3. Sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for brevity, 'IGST Act'], prescribes that, a registered person making zero rated supply shall be eligible to claim refund under either of the following options, namely:- (a) he may supply goods or services or both under bond or Letter of Undertaking, subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be prescribed, without payment of integrated tax and claim refund of unutilized input tax credit; or (b) he may supply goods or services or both, subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back, the system automatically scrolls out IGST refund. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to refund. 8. I have heard the submissions. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner exported cotton through seven shipping bills and paid a sum of Rs. 4,80,355/- towards IGST. It is also not in dispute that the statute provides for refund of IGST on export of materials. The only condition is that if the export is made after payment of tax, he is entitled to get refund. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the requirements of Sub-Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017. Accordingly, he is entitled for refund and it cannot be ignored by citing the circular. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial number suffixed with A or C and by making above stated declarations, the exporters consciously relinquished their IGST/ITC claims." 12. When the above circular was dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in M/s.Amit Cotton Industries Through Partner, Veljibhai Virjibhai Ranipa vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, in R/Special Civil Application No.20126 of 2018, dated 27.06.2019, the Division Bench has held that it has nothing to do with the IGST refund and it is incumbent on the respondents to refund the IGST as claimed by the petitioner therein. The respondents have already passed a circular when they were facing lot of problems because of the fact that the refunds are completely systemmanag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
