TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Petitioner was not to avail double benefit, that is of the IGST refund and the drawback, the Petitioner therein had become entitled to the IGST Refund. In the present case, the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the IGST paid on the exports in question, as it is certain that this is not a case where the Petitioner is availing any double benefit that is of the IGST refund and a higher duty drawback. The Respondents are directed to refund to the Petitioner the IGST paid by the Petitioner in respect of the goods exported, i.e. zero rated supply, under shipping bills in question being an amount of Rs. 21,41,451/- with simple interest at 7% per annum with effect from 22nd February 2018 - the amounts be released within two weeks of the receipt of the authenticated copy of the present order by the concerned officer, authorised to release the amounts. The petition is allowed. - G.S. KULKARNI JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prathamesh Gargate, a/w. Mr. Bharat Raichandani, i/b. UBR Legal. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER G.S. KULKARNI, J.):- Rule. Rule made retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to look into the application made by the Petitioner. Also the Petitioner, thereafter, re-submitted the refund documents, namely, the Tax Invoice, Shipping Bill, GST Forms, etc. Also a Certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant certifying the Petitioner s export transaction vide Shipping Bill No. 8360082 came to be submitted by the Petitioner. 6. The Petitioner has contended that, however, despite all such compliances, there was no response from the Respondents. On such backdrop, on 26th September 2020, the Petitioner lodged a grievance in regard to the IGST refund with the Central Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System ( CPGRAMS ). The Petitioner s grievance was acknowledged. The Petitioner received an e-mail dated 7th October 2020 that the Petitioner s grievance has been disposed on the ground that the Petitioner had availed a higher duty drawback on its exports under the said Export Invoice and corresponding Shipping Bill. On such backdrop, as according to the Petitioner the reasons for rejection were not correct the Petitioner submitted a fresh grievance on 9th October 2020, justifying and clarifying that it had not realized any higher amount of drawback against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... airly state that the documents would reveal that the export in question was a zero rated supply in terms of Section 16(3) of the IGST Act, hence, the provisions of Section 54 of CGST Act, as well as Rule 96 of CGST Rules, would become applicable. Mr. Mishra would submit that the exports of the Petitioner also were bearing the same rate of duty drawback with 2% in Entry No. 854499, as set out in notification dated 31st October 2016, notifying the rates of drawback in relation to the goods specified in the Schedule annexed to the set of notification. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides for refund of tax, which would entitle the Assessee to claim any refund of tax and interest or any other amount paid by him by making an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Explanation below Section 54 provides for refund, which includes refund of tax paid on zero rated supplies of goods or services or both or on inputs services, etc. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the case of the Petitioner is a case of zero rated supply under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. higher duty drawback and (6) i.e. lower duty drawback are the same, then it shall necessarily imply that the same pertains only to the Customs component and is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of the CENVET facility or not. 10. The petitioner had exported Rope Making Machine HSN Code 84794000 which attracts the same rate under both the columns (4) (6) respectively i.e. 2 per cent. Thus it is evident that the petitioner has claimed drawback of the customs component only for their exports and there arises no question of denying the refund of IGST. The rationale for not allowing the refund of IGST for those exporters, who claim higher duty drawback is that the higher duty drawback reflects the elements of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax taken together and since higher duty drawback is already being availed than granting the IGST refund C/SCA/1014/2020 ORDER would amount to double benefit as the Central Excise and Service Tax has been subsumed in the GST. In the case of the writ-applicant, the drawback rates being the same, it represents only the Customs elements, which did not get subsumed in the GST and thus, the writ-applicant cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
