Aartos International Llp (Formerly Azuvi International Llp VS Deputy Commissioner (Customs)

The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) firm involved in the trading of ceramics, has filed a petition questioning the actions of the respondent authority for failing to issue a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with accrued interest. The petition outlines the petitioner’s legal standing and asserts its entitlement to the refund in accordance with relevant tax regulations. It likely details the specific transactions and circumstances surrounding the IGST refund claim, presenting evidence to support its case. The petitioner may argue that the delay or refusal in refund issuance has caused financial hardship or loss, justifying their petition. Additionally, they may highlight any attempts made to resolve the issue through administrative channels prior to resorting to legal action. The petition likely requests relief in the form of the IGST refund owed to them, along with any applicable interest or damages for the delay. It’s aimed at initiating legal proceedings to compel the respondent authority to fulfill their obligations under tax laws and ensure the petitioner’s rights are uphel.

The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership Firm formerly known as Azuvi International LLP, now operating as Aartos International LLP, has filed a petition questioning the actions of the respondent authority for failing to issue a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with interest. The petitioner, engaged in trading ceramics and tiles, exported goods in February and March 2020. They provided shipping bills along with GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 as evidence. Out of three export invoices, the petitioner received a refund of IGST paid at the time of export amounting to Rs. 20.45 Lakh. The petitioner claims that the remaining refund is still pending. They assert that they have duly updated their name to Aartos International LLP with relevant government departments and banks. The petitioner seeks redress for the outstanding refund of IGST along with interest and provides documentation to support their claim.

The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership Firm formerly known as Azuvi International LLP and now as Aartos International LLP, engaged in trading ceramics and tiles, filed a petition questioning the respondent authority’s failure to refund Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with interest. The petitioner exported goods in February and March 2020, providing shipping bills, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-1 for verification. They received refunds for IGST on three export invoices but not for one invoice dated February 6, 2020, amounting to Rs.19,94,994/-. Despite attempts to address the issue through the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance portal, there was no response for two months until the matter was disposed of on May 13, 2022.

The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) trading ceramics and tiles, filed a petition challenging the respondent authority’s failure to refund Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with interest. The petitioner, formerly known as Azuvi International LLP and now as Aartos International LLP since April 8, 2019, exported goods in February and March 2020. They submitted shipping bills, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-1 as evidence. While they received refunds for IGST on three export invoices and duty drawbacks, they hadn’t received the refund for one export invoice dated February 6, 2020, amounting to Rs. 19,94,994/-. Despite attempts to address this via the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance (CPGRAMS) portal, receiving no response for two months until May 13, 2022, the matter remained unresolved. Customs Mundra forwarded emails to ICEGATE requesting the processing of shipping bills following PFMS directives.

The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership Firm engaged in trading ceramics and tiles, seeks redressal regarding the non-issuance of a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with interest. They exported goods in February and March 2020, with supporting documents like shipping bills and tax returns. While they received refunds for some invoices and duty drawbacks, one invoice’s IGST refund of Rs. 19,94,994/- remains pending since February 6, 2020. Despite attempts to address this through the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance (CPGRAMS), there was no response for two months until the matter was disposed of on May 13, 2022. Following directions from the PFMS, Customs Mundra forwarded emails to ICEGATE requesting action on the pending shipping bills. Additionally, the petitioner was advised to contact ICEGATE directly for resolution. Despite these efforts, the petitioner’s grievance remains unresolved. They argue that as per Sections 16 and 54 of the IGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, the claimed refund is due, and the respondent should sanction 90% of the claimed amount within a specified period.

The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) firm engaged in trading ceramics and tiles, filed a petition questioning the non-issuance of a refund for Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with interest by the respondent authority. The petitioner had changed its name from Azuvi International LLP to Aartos International LLP and had duly updated this change with relevant government departments.

The petitioner exported goods in February and March 2020 and provided shipping bills along with GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 as evidence. While refunds for some invoices were received, a refund for IGST paid on one particular invoice dated 06.02.2020 amounting to Rs.19,94,994/- was not received. Despite attempts to address the issue through the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (CPGRAMS), there was no response initially. Subsequent communication from CPGRAMS directed the petitioner to contact ICEGATE for resolution.

The petitioner cited provisions of the IGST Act and CGST Rules, stating that the refund claimed should have been sanctioned within a specific time frame. However, the respondent authority had not issued the refund order, prompting the filing of the petition.

The petitioner requested the court to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate direction mandating the respondent to issue the refund along with interest, and to grant any other interim relief deemed fit by the court.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: