VENUS JEWEL

Vs

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIV. IV CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 655

The case revolves around the legal framework surrounding of the refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) paid on exported goods, primarily focusing on Rule 96 and Rule 96-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, as well as Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) Act. These rules establish procedural requirements for exporters, including the submission of a bond or a Letter of Undertaking (LUT) before export, and the timely filing of export invoices on the common portal.

The petitioner, an exporter seeking a refund of IGST paid on exported goods, asserts compliance with all relevant rules and procedures, particularly emphasizing the timely filing of shipping bills.

Initially, the authorities, including the Customs and GST Departments, deny the petitioner's refund claim, citing technical issues and discrepancies between their electronic portals. They argue that the petitioner must follow the prescribed procedure, including filing a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act.

Court intervention ensues to resolve the dispute, examining the legal framework governing the petitioner's refund claim. It finds that the petitioner is entitled to the refund under existing rules and precedents, declaring the impugned circular issued by the authorities as inapplicable to the petitioner's case. The court orders the authorities to process the refund promptly and pay interest on the delayed amount, emphasizing the significance of streamlining refund processes and ensuring effective coordination between government departments to facilitate international trade and commerce.

The text underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements outlined in Rule 96, Rule 96-A, and relevant provisions of the GST Act for claiming a refund of IGST on exports. It highlights the challenges posed by technical discrepancies between the Customs and GST Departments' electronic portals, emphasizing the need for improved coordination and integration between government departments. Overall, the court's intervention resolves the dispute in favor of the petitioner, affirming their entitlement to the refund based on existing legal provisions and precedents.

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426