TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest for delayed refund. HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.1.2020 [ 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] passed in the captioned writ petition along with other writ petitions allowed the writ petitions and declared Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as ultra vires the Act - the notifications impugned in this petition have already been declared ultra vires. Therefore, the said prayer in this petition did not require any further consideration. Refund of the amount of Rs. 6,98,00,420/- paid by the petitioner as IGST on ocean freight of goods imported during July, 2017 to December, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The competent authority of the respondents is direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of 5% IGST under the heading 9965 for the services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory to a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India. (b) Sr. No. 10 of the Notification No. 10/2017-IT (Rate) dated 28.6.2017, which makes the importer, as defined under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, located in the taxable territory, as the person liable to pay GST in respect of the services by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs station of clearance in India. 3. The petitioner M/s. Krishak Bharati Co-Operative Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforementioned Notification Nos. 8 of 2017 and 10 of 2017 both dated 28.6.2017 read with corrigendum dated 30.6.2017 came up for consideration for their validity before this court. This court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India being Special Civil Application No. 726 of 2018 decided on 23rd January, 2020 held the said notifications to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the statute. The decision has been followed in Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. vs. UOI [2020 (35) GSTL 82 (Guj.)], Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. vs. Union of India [2020 (41) GSTL 292 (Guj.)] and in Comsol Energy Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat [TS-1241-HS(GUJ)-2020-GST]. 4.1 The above position and law emanating from the decision of this court in M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and order dated 19.5.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. 4.2.1 The court thereafter directed in para 4 as under, In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present application requires consideration and hence, the same is allowed in terms of prayer 6 (a). The respondents are hereby directed to grant refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to the Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 along with statutory rate of interest on such refund within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of necessary documents by the applicants. 4.2.2 The decision in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was stated, was taken to the Supreme Court and came to be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
