The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 04.05.2022 in the matter of Phoenix Contact India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. – 13152 of 2019, allowed the refund of IGST when there was some error in mentioning the code for claiming the refund and the same was later on rectified.
The Petitioner filed the present Writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to forthwith sanction refund of IGST paid on export of goods through two shipping bills No. 7837037 and No. 8697421 respectively. Further directions were sought to release the amount of refund with interest @15% per annum as the refund has been unreasonable and unjustifiably withheld by the respondents for more than two years without passing an order.
Facts: –
- The petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of electrical connectors falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff and its factory is located at Dudhola, Palwal, Haryana.
- That in the present petition the Petitioner is claiming refund of IGST paid on two shipping bills bearing nos. 7837037, dated 05.08.2017 and 8697421, dated 16.09.2017.
- It is not in dispute that the petitioner had paid IGST i.e. local tax @28% of the export value. The refund amount for Shipping bill no. 7837037 is Rs. 8,00,621/- and for shipping bill no. 8697421 is Rs. 8,25,349/- and the refunds have been filed under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 96 of the CGST rules, 2017.
- However, by mistake the petitioner had claimed duty drawback by referring to the code no. 853699“A” instead of 853699“B” and was granted duty drawback @ 2% of FOB value of exports amounting to Rs. 1,17,162/- and not the IGST paid on export of goods.
- That on realising the mistake, the petitioner made corrections as permitted by the respondents, with prescribed procedure on 25.10.2018 and ultimately the correct code was allowed to entered.
- Further despite the correction were permitted by the respondents, the refund of IGST was not granted. The Petitioner has been following up with the department for last 2 years but there was no movement in the matter. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
To read more subscribe today: www.taxo.online
