TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F 2021 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2021 - K. R. SHRIRAM AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. Rahul Sarda a/w Mr. Sankalp Anantwar, Mr. Tushar Gaikwad, Mt. Pratik Kadav i/b SMA Law Partners for Petitioners. Mr. Vijay Kantharia a/w. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh for the Respondent. P. C. : Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction against respondent to refund Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) of ₹ 22,92,587 paid by petitioner No.1 in respect of export of goods on 28/6/2017 the date when the provisions for refund and calculation of IGST under the CGST Act and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the IGST Act ) had not been notified. On 1 July 2017, certain provisions of CGST Act and Goods and Services Act came i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en categorized as Zero Rated Supply which means that goods could be exported under Bond or Letter of Undertaking without payment of integrated tax followed by claim of refund of unutilized input tax credit or on payment of integrated tax with provision for refund of the tax paid. Petitioner chose to pay the amount of ₹ 22,92,587/- being the IGST and claimed refund. The payment is reflected in the IGST returns of petitioner No.1. It is petitioner s case that as per Circular No.26/2017-Customs dated 1/7/2017, petitioner No.1 was not required to file any separate application for refund of IGST paid on supply of goods for exports. Shipping bill since had all details including IGST, invoice details was to be deemed to be an application f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tating that the data for the said shipping bill of petitioner was not transmitted from GSTN to ICEGATE and therefore his office is unable to process IGST refund. Respondent No.4 has requested Respondent No.6 to look into the matter and provide suggestions so that refund with reference to Petitioner's shipping bill could be processed. As there was no further response petitioner sent reminders to Respondent No.5 who gave an endorsement in the office copy of petitioner's letters which reads as under: There is no information received from GSTN for this shipping bills. Through office interface, IGST amount can be refunded which gets reflected in system as per information from GSTN. Raise issue with GSTN helpdesk 5. Notwithstand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner is not aware of any decision having been taken by the respondent no.6 pursuant to receipt of the said communication dated February 10, 2020. 5. Since we are satisfied that the respondent no.6 has been served with a copy of the Writ Petition and he has chosen not to be represented today, we direct him to take an appropriate decision on such communication within a period of a fortnight of service of a copy of this order. Such decision may be placed before this Court on the returnable date, i.e., September 28, 2021. Notwithstanding this order respondent No.6 has chosen not to take a decision on the communication from respondent No.4. At least nothing has been placed on record by respondents. 7. On 28/9/2021 Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been refunded. 8. At the beginning itself this court indicated to the Counsel that we are inclined to dispose the petition at this stage itself because respondent No.6 never attempted to resolve the problem of petitioner and no reply has been filed and directions of this court have not been complied with. In the circumstance petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:- a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other order or Writ of direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other order or Writ or direction directing the Respondents or such of them as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to refund within a period of four weeks the Integrated Goods and Service Tax of ₹ 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
