TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ and direction to the respondents to sanction refund of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (for short IGST ) in regard to the Goods exported by the petitioner which are stated to be zero rated supply in respect of four Shipping Bills which are of the period between 31 July 2017 to 16 August 2017. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Manufacture and Export of Wide Range of Brass Parts and Ferrous and Non-Ferrous components and is duly registered under the GST Act as also having IEC code number. The petitioner has undertaken the export in question, the details in regard to such exports namely the invoices are placed on record. The petitioner having claimed duty drawback at a higher rate on all these exports appears to be an admitted position. The petitioner filed GST returns for the said period in form GSTR-01 for July/August as also in form GSTR-3B for July 2017 and August 2017 which are annexed at Exhibit E to E3 in the petition. The petitioner contends that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short CBIC ) had issued circular No. 05/2018 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the petitioner would not be entitled to make such application for refund of the IGST paid in regard to the exports of the shipping bills in question, much less with interest as claimed. It is contended that it is not correct for the petitioner to contend that the respondents have withheld the refund arbitrarily and without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. It is contended that it is a matter of fact, that the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995 were amended vide notification no. 58/2017 dated 29 June 2017 to allow drawback subject to the provisions inter alia of which CGST Act 2017 as also the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST-2017) and rules framed thereunder had become applicable. It is contended that in the present case the Goods were exported under the payment of IGST. It is contended that at the time of export, the petitioner claimed and availed higher rate of drawback by suffixing A to drawback serial number. It is contended that ICES system sanctioned drawback of Rs. 12,02,230/- in respect of all four Shipping Bills and automatically rejected IGST amount paid by the petitioner in terms of Notification No.131/2016 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal Commissioner of Customs 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 200 200(Guj.), as also the decision in Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International Vs. Union of India (2023) 95 GST 177 (Delhi), and considering the said position in law and the willingness on the part of the petitioner therein, the department was directed to refund to the petitioner the IGST paid by the petitioner, in respect of goods exported at a zero rated supply under shipping bills in question. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record as also the decisions as relied on behalf of the parties, the following discussion in the decision of this Court in Sunlight Cable Industries (supra) assist the conclusion: 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 se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en as per the Condition No. 7 of the Notification 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.) dated 31/10/2016, if the rate indicated in the columns (4) 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 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 repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the higher duty drawback as availed by the petitioner. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition by the following order. ORDER I. We accept the statement as made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing for adjustment of the higher duty drawback amounts to be a condition for the refund of the IGST amount paid by the petitioner on the export undertaken by the petitioner which were on the Zero rated supply in terms of Section 16 of the IGST Act. II. The respondents shall accept such adjustment as offered by the petitioner and after adjusting the amounts of the higher duty drawback, make appropriate calculations and refund to the petitioner the IGST amounts on the zero rated supply as undertaken by the petitioner. III. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to the designated officer of the department. 9. All contentions of the parties on the actual refund to be received by the petitioner is expressly kept open. 10. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 11. Needless to observe that on both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
