The Writ Petition is allowed and a Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the 2nd respondent to grant IGST refund on the zero rated supplies effected by the petitioner as claimed, or on provisional basis as provided under Section 54(6) of the CGST Act.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund -- The petitioner sought directions to grant the IGST refund of Rs. 14,78,99,959/- along with applicable rate of interest. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has been identified as a risky exporter on the basis of extensive data analytics and justified their action of non-refund of IGST paid, on the ground of system alert generated on 01.03.2020, requiring to examine the suppliers of the petitioner. In the said alert, nowhere it has been stated that the suppliers of the petitioner are either fake or non-existing. The court observed that in as much as no discrepancy has been found with regard to the suppliers of the petitioner, the refund claim by the petitioner cannot be denied to be processed on the ground that verification of the suppliers of the petitioner’s supplier is pending. The reluctance on the part of the respondents in granting of refund to exporters upon completion of exports would result in taking away the incentive to export and would make the exports from the country unviable due to non-flow of funds in the form of refund assured under the Act. The court further observed that the instructions contained in internal circular No.20/16/07/2020-GST, dt.20.05.2020, wherein the Board had made changes to the SOP dt.23.01.2020 for verification of IGST refunds and specified that in future, all verifications are to be completed and report be sent within a maximum period of three weeks of receipt of request for verification. In spite of this in the present case, though more than three months have passed by, the refund application has not been processed. The consequence of inaction on the part of the respondents would result in the provisions of Section 56 of the Act getting attracted, making the respondents liable to pay interest for such delayed refund either on provisional basis or otherwise.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Petition and issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to grant IGST refund, as claimed, or on provisional basis, within three weeks and further directed to grant All Industry Drawback to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is allowed and a Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the 2nd respondent to grant IGST refund on the zero rated supplies effected by the petitioner as claimed, or on provisional basis as provided under Section 54(6) of the CGST Act.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund -- The petitioner sought directions to grant the IGST refund of Rs. 14,78,99,959/- along with applicable rate of interest. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has been identified as a risky exporter on the basis of extensive data analytics and justified their action of non-refund of IGST paid, on the ground of system alert generated on 01.03.2020, requiring to examine the suppliers of the petitioner. In the said alert, nowhere it has been stated that the suppliers of the petitioner are either fake or non-existing. The court observed that in as much as no discrepancy has been found with regard to the suppliers of the petitioner, the refund claim by the petitioner cannot be denied to be processed on the ground that verification of the suppliers of the petitioner’s supplier is pending. The reluctance on the part of the respondents in granting of refund to exporters upon completion of exports would result in taking away the incentive to export and would make the exports from the country unviable due to non-flow of funds in the form of refund assured under the Act. The court further observed that the instructions contained in internal circular No.20/16/07/2020-GST, dt.20.05.2020, wherein the Board had made changes to the SOP dt.23.01.2020 for verification of IGST refunds and specified that in future, all verifications are to be completed and report be sent within a maximum period of three weeks of receipt of request for verification. In spite of this in the present case, though more than three months have passed by, the refund application has not been processed. The consequence of inaction on the part of the respondents would result in the provisions of Section 56 of the Act getting attracted, making the respondents liable to pay interest for such delayed refund either on provisional basis or otherwise.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Petition and issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to grant IGST refund, as claimed, or on provisional basis, within three weeks and further directed to grant All Industry Drawback to the petitioner.