Choksi Exports VS Union Of India

This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prompted the court to issue a notice on November 24, 2022. Following this order, the learned advocates representing respondent numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 filed their appearances. However, despite being served, no appearances were filed on behalf of respondent numbers 1, 2, and 7.

Subsequently, on January 18, 2023, the court passed further orders regarding the matter. The details of these orders and the subsequent legal proceedings highlight the ongoing judicial process and the involvement (or lack thereof) of the various respondents.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Initially, on 24th November 2022, the Court issued a notice. Following this, advocates filed appearances on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. However, no appearances were filed for respondent nos. 1, 2, and 7, despite them being served.

On 18th January 2023, the Court passed an order wherein the petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to release the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to Rs. 14,80,27,927.67. The petitioner claims that this amount has been illegally withheld, violating section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as Rule 91(1) of both the Central and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

The petitioner is a partnership firm with its registered office in Gujarat, engaged in manufacturing and exporting organic pigments, and is registered under the GST law. The firm was marked as a “risky exporter,” leading to respondent no. 9 visiting the petitioner’s premises for physical verification on 10th December 2021. The petitioner submitted all required information via email on 17th January 2022, as per Circular No. 131/1/2020-GST dated 23rd January 2020. Further compliance has been made, and the petitioner filed a grievance application on 15th June 2022.

Due to the pending refund, the petitioner is experiencing significant financial difficulties, prompting them to seek relief from the Court.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court issued a notice on 24.11.2022. Following the notice, advocates appeared on behalf of respondent numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. No appearance was filed for respondent numbers 1, 2, and 7 despite being served.

On 18.1.2023, the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a direction for the respondent to release a refund of IGST amounting to Rs.14,80,27,927.67/-. The petitioner claims this amount is being withheld illegally, violating section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 91(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

The petitioner is a partnership firm registered in Gujarat, engaged in manufacturing and exporting organic pigments and registered under GST law. The petitioner was marked as a “risky exporter.” On 10.12.2021, respondent No.9 conducted a physical verification of the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner submitted all required information via email on 17.01.2022 as prescribed under Circular No.131/1/2020-GST dated 23.01.2020. Additional compliances were also completed, and a Grievance Application was filed on 15.06.2022.

The petitioner is facing significant financial crises due to the pending refund, prompting this court action. The petitioner humbly requests the court to:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents to disburse the IGST refund with applicable interest at 9% p.a.
(b) As interim relief, direct the respondents to grant a provisional refund of 90% of the claimed amount.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents to remove the “risky exporter” tag.
(d) Issue orders, directions, writs, or other relief as deemed fit and proper by the court in the interest of justice.
(e) Award the costs of and incidental to this application to be paid by the respondents.

An affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6, indicating that the inquiry began after the exporter had been suspended.

This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the release of a refund amounting to ₹14,80,27,927.67 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) that is allegedly withheld illegally. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and exporting organic pigments, contends that the withholding violates provisions of section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with related rules.

On 24.11.2022, the court issued notice regarding the petition. Subsequent appearances were filed by advocates on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, while no appearance was filed for respondent nos. 1, 2, and 7. The court, on 18.1.2023, acknowledged the petitioner’s request for the refund release, citing financial crises faced due to the pending refund. The petitioner has been tagged as a “risky exporter,” leading to the withholding of the refund. Physical verification of the petitioner’s premises was conducted on 10.12.2021 by respondent no. 9, and all required information was submitted by the petitioner on 17.01.2022, with further compliance made through a Grievance Application dated 15.06.2022.

The petitioner seeks several reliefs:

1. A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the IGST refund with applicable interest at 9% per annum.

2. An ad-interim relief for a provisional refund of 90% of the claimed amount pending the petition’s final disposal.

3. A directive to remove the “risky exporter” tag from the petitioner.

4. Other reliefs deemed appropriate by the court in the interest of justice.

5. Costs incidental to the application to be paid by the respondents.

An affidavit-in-reply by respondents no. 5 and 6 states that the petitioner was suspended as a “risky exporter” on 25.10.2021, leading to the refund being kept in abeyance. A Level-1 inquiry was conducted and cleared, with a report submitted to respondents no. 8 and 9. The issuance of the refund is pending with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, and the matter awaits a no-objection certificate from respondent no. 7, the Director General, DGARM. Counsel for the respondent requested a short time to seek instructions from respondents no. 3 and 4, with the matter scheduled for further proceedings on 25.01.2023 and posted for 01.02.2023.

On the current date, submissions were made by advocates representing the petitioner and the respondents, detailing their respective positions and arguments.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: