2024 (11) TMI 1330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Hirak Shah appearing for learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Having regard to the brief controversy involved, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Param V.Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Hirak Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari any other writ, o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stances of the case may warrant. 5. The short question that arises for adjudication of this Court is whether the petitioner is eligible for refund of IGST on ocean freight paid by the petitioner in pursuance of Notification No.8/2017 and Notification No.10/2017 dated 28.06.2017, during June 2018, when such Notifications have been struck down by this Court in case of M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2020 (1) TMI 974, and the Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the same by judgement/order dated 19.5.2022 in case of Union of India and others Vs. Ms. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022 (5) TMI 968. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgements, the petitioner filed a refund claim for the period June, 2018 on 29. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erals Private Limited through Director (Supra) and the decision of various High Courts including this Court in case of BLA Coke Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in Special Civil Application No. 19481 of 2023, wherein, it has been categorically held that when the Notification itself is struck down, the respondent-authorities cannot insist for levy of IGST on the amount of ocean freight. Such being the position, the main issue falls for determination of this Court is whether the prayers for refund of the amount of levy are maintainable and whether this Court must direct the respondents to refund the same to the petitioner. In case of Mafatlal Industries and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1997 (5) SCC 536 the Apex Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X