Facts of the Case: The petitioner exported goods and while filing Form GSTR-1, the petitioner inadvertently entered the IGST amount as “Zero” under Table 6A (export details). The correct IGST payment was shown in Form GSTR-3B (Table 3.1(a) instead of 3.1(b)).
Due to this typographical error, the ICEGATE portal auto-generated IGST refund scroll showed Nil refund, despite actual payment of IGST. The petitioner filed representations in 2020 and 2021 along with supporting documents (export invoices, shipping bills, bills of lading, CA certificate, and GST payment challans).
The authorities, however, did not sanction the refund, contending that the system is automated and refund was processed as “Zero” based on taxpayer’s own return entries.
Issue: Whether IGST refund on zero-rated exports can be denied solely due to technical/clerical errors in GST return (GSTR-1) despite actual export of goods with payment of IGST being undisputed.
Held that:
The Court observed that the petitioner had admittedly committed a typographical/clerical mistake by entering the IGST figure as “Zero” in Table 6A of GSTR-1 and reporting it under an incorrect table in GSTR-3B. However, the factum of export of goods and payment of IGST was duly established through contemporaneous records, including shipping bills, invoices, e-way bills, bills of lading, and CA certification. Therefore, such an error could not disentitle the petitioner to refund which is a statutory right under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017.
The Department’s stand that refund was processed as “Nil” due to system-generated mismatch was rejected. The Court emphasized that statutory benefits cannot be denied merely because of technical limitations of the portal. The system being automated does not absolve the authorities from their responsibility to examine whether refund is otherwise legally due.
The Court referred to Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 which governs grant of refund of IGST on exports. Refund may be withheld only in limited circumstances specified in Rule 96(4), namely where request has been received from the jurisdictional Commissioner for withholding refund under Section 54(10) or 54(11) of the CGST Act; or where proper officer of Customs determines that goods were exported in violation of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the petitioner’s case did not fall under any of these contingencies, denial of refund was held to be unsustainable.
The Court relied on Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, where it was categorically held that refund cannot be denied for mismatch of shipping bills and GSTR-1/GSTR-3B entries when export and IGST payment are proved. The ratio squarely applied to the present case.
The impugned denial of refund was quashed. Respondents were directed to sanction the refund of IGST to the petitioner in respect of the three shipping bills for the period April–September 2018. Hence, refund was to be granted together with statutory interest payable under Section 56 of the CGST Act, from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund.
Case Name: Ruhi Siraj Makda v. Union of India dated 14.08.2025
To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1982
