TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGST paid by him on export of goods has not been considered by the respondents who have merely rejected the same by placing reliance upon circular No.37/2018 dated 09.10.2018 and not adverting to the other contentions of the petitioner with regard to his entitlement for refund. In the light of the circular dated 09.10.2018 and notification dated 31.10.2016 and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned letter at Annexure B dated 27.09.2021 and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the material on record - petition allowed. - WRIT PET ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar dated 09.10.2018 but the same has also failed to consider the specific claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to refund of IGST since the said circular is not applicable to the petitioner and issue of claim of higher duty drawback by the petitioner is between the petitioner and the customs authority and the same cannot be the basis by the respondents to decline grant of refund of ISGT paid by him. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following statutory provisions, circulars and judgments: 1. Provision of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017, Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 16 of IGST, 2017. 2. M/s. Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of customs reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is liable to be rejected. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perusal of the material on record including the impugned letter at Annexure B dated 27.09.2021 would indicate that the specific contention urged by the petitioner in relation to his request for entitlement to refund of IGST paid by him on export of goods has not been considered by the respondents who have merely rejected the same by placing reliance upon circular No.37/2018 dated 09.10.2018 and not adverting to the other contentions of the petitioner with regard to his entitlement for refund. 7. Under these circumstances, in the light of the circular dated 09.10.2018 and notification dated 31. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
