Aim Worldwide Pvt. Ltd VS Union Of India

The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention to address their grievances. The primary reliefs sought by the petitioners are as follows:

1. Admission of the Petition: The petitioners request the court to admit their petition, acknowledging the legitimacy and urgency of their claims.

2. Allowance of the Petition: They seek a favorable ruling on their petition, urging the court to consider their demands favorably and grant the requested reliefs.

3. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus: The petitioners request the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to immediately sanction the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to Rs. 14,94,739/-. This amount pertains to the IGST paid on the export of goods (specifically Comber Noil), which are classified as ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ under the relevant bills.

4. Payment of Interest: The petitioners further request the court to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the IGST refund amount. They seek this interest from the date of the shipping bill until the date the refund is paid, arguing that the respondent authorities have arbitrarily and illegally withheld the refund.

5. Ex Parte Ad Interim Relief: The petitioners also seek an ex parte ad interim order, which would provide immediate temporary relief until a final decision is made by the court.

In summary, the petitioners are challenging the delay and withholding of their IGST refund by the respondent authorities, seeking immediate sanction of the refund amount along with interest due to the arbitrary and illegal withholding of funds. They have approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking judicial intervention to ensure that their legitimate claims are addressed promptly and fairly.

The petitioners have filed an extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking several reliefs. The primary reliefs requested are as follows:

1. Admission and allowance of the petition.

2. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs directing the respondent authorities to immediately sanction a refund of IGST totaling Rs. 14,94,739/- paid for the exported goods (Comber Noil), which are classified as ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ under specific shipping bills.

3. Directing the respondent authorities to pay interest at 18% on the refund amount from the date of the shipping bill until the refund is paid, citing the arbitrary and illegal withholding of the refund.

4. Granting an ex parte ad-interim order in favor of the petitioners in terms of the refund and interest.

The main issue raised by the petitioners is the inaction of the respondent authorities in processing the IGST refund related to the shipping bills dated from 05.07.2017 to 10.08.2017.

The petitioners are involved in the trading and export of cotton, yarn, textiles, and fabrics, and they hold a valid GST Registration No. 27AAKCS0140G1ZL. They exported goods (Comber Noil) under various invoices and paid IGST amounting to Rs. 14,94,739/-. They filed the necessary forms, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, within the prescribed time.

However, the petitioners inadvertently claimed a higher rate of drawback by selecting option “5202A” and option “600699A” instead of the correct lower rate options “5202B” and “600699B” while generating shipping bills. Realizing this mistake, they immediately requested an amendment to the shipping bills from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Export), Customs House, Mundra, under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, on 12.09.2017. They asked for the incorrect “A” options to be treated as the correct “B” options.

On 15.09.2017, the petitioners further submitted a request to consider their case for an IGST refund, disclosing their intention not to claim the higher drawback and showing willingness to return the differential amount. Despite these efforts, the respondent authorities have not processed the refund, leading to the filing of this petition.

The petitioners are engaged in the trading and export of various cotton-related products, including yarn, textiles, and fabrics. They hold a valid GST Registration No. 27AAKCS0140G1ZL. Their case involves the export of goods specifically referred to as Comber Noil, for which they paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to Rs. 14,94,739/-. To support their claim, the petitioners have referenced and relied on forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, asserting that these were filed within the prescribed time frame.

However, an issue arose due to an inadvertent error made by the petitioners’ company during the claim process. They mistakenly selected the higher rate of drawback by entering options “5202A” and “600699A” instead of the correct lower rate options “5202B” and “600699B.” This mistake has implications for the refund or rebate they can claim under the GST regime, as the selection of the incorrect rate options affects the calculation and processing of their IGST refund on the exported goods. The petitioners’ case hinges on this error and its resolution within the regulatory framework.

The petitioners, involved in trading and exporting cotton, yarn, textiles, and fabrics, hold GST Registration No. 27AAKCS0140G1ZL. They exported goods (Comber Noil) and paid IGST amounting to Rs. 14,94,739. They filed the necessary forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B on time. However, the petitioners mistakenly claimed a higher rate of drawback by selecting options “5202A” and “600699A” instead of the correct lower rate options “5202B” and “600699B” when generating shipping bills.

Upon realizing the error, the petitioners promptly requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Export) at Customs House, Mundra, on 12.09.2017, to amend the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. They requested that the incorrect “A” options be treated as the correct “B” options. On 15.09.2017, the petitioners further submitted a request to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to consider their case for an IGST refund. They expressed their intention not to claim the higher drawback and showed their willingness to return the differential drawback amount.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: