Bhavya Enterprise VS Union of India

1. The matter was heard with Mr. D. Saraf representing the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal appearing for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 from the Department of Customs and Excise. Mr. B. Gogoi represented respondent no. 2, 6, and 9.

2. The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship engaged in exporting various goods and services to neighboring countries from India, is represented by Sri Gaurav Agarwal. Following the enactment of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner registered itself for the business of exporting goods to Bangladesh and Nepal. During July 2017 to September 2017, the petitioner paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax amounting to Rs. 9,48,645.99 for goods exported from India through Mahadipur L.C. Station (West Bengal) and Raxuaul L.C. Station (Bihar).

3. The petitioner claims entitlement to a refund of the entire amount paid as Integrated Goods and Services Tax, totaling Rs. 9,48,645.99.

In a recent court hearing, Mr. D. Saraf represented the petitioner, while Mr. S.C. Keyal appeared for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 from the Department of Customs and Excise. Mr. B. Gogoi represented respondent no. 2, 6, and 9.

The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship engaged in exporting various goods and services from India to neighboring countries, including Bangladesh and Nepal, registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During July 2017 to September 2017, they paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax amounting to Rs. 9,48,645.99 on goods exported via Mahadipur L.C. Station (West Bengal) and Raxuaul L.C. Station (Bihar).

The petitioner claims entitlement to a refund of the entire amount under Section 16(3)(b) and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They assert that the entire customs amount paid is refundable. The petitioner submitted refund claims both online and manually to the statutory authority. However, they allege that the Department did not process their refund claims, causing grievance. Hence, the petitioner has approached the court via a writ petition seeking relief.

In a recent court hearing, Mr. D. Saraf represented the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, in a case against the Department of Customs and Excise, where Mr. S.C. Keyal and Mr. B. Gogoi appeared for the respondents. The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship engaged in exporting goods and services to neighboring countries from India, registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, claimed a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to Rs. 9,48,645.99 for exports made from July 2017 to September 2017.

The petitioner contended that as per Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017, and Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, it was entitled to a full refund of the IGST paid. Despite filing both online and manual refund applications, the Department did not process the claim, prompting the petitioner to approach the court for relief.

Upon issuance of a court notice on 24th July 2019, it was revealed during subsequent proceedings that the Department had initiated the refund process. As of 23rd September 2019 and 29th October 2020, the principal refund amount was granted to the petitioner, which was acknowledged by both parties. However, the petitioner continued to seek 6% interest on the refunded amount, which the Department had not yet addressed.

Thus, while the principal refund has been received by the petitioner, the unresolved issue remains the payment of interest on the refunded amount, which forms the basis of the ongoing dispute before the court.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. D. Saraf, sought a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) totaling Rs.9,48,645.99 for goods exported from India to Bangladesh and Nepal between July 2017 and September 2017. The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship exporting various goods, had duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite filing both online and manual refund claims, the Department of Customs and Excise initially did not process the refund, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition.

Following court notice on July 24, 2019, the Department began refund proceedings, eventually refunding the principal amount on September 23, 2019, and October 29, 2020. However, the petitioner contends that the Department has not yet addressed their claim for 6% interest on the refunded principal amount. It was acknowledged in court that the interest claim was only pursued through the writ petition, as no separate application seeking interest payment had been filed.

The court noted that while the principal amount had been refunded, the issue of interest remained unresolved due to the absence of a formal application.

In the present case, Mr. D. Saraf appeared as counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Keyal represented respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 from the Department of Customs and Excise, and Mr. B. Gogoi appeared for respondent nos. 2, 6, and 9.

The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship engaged in exporting goods and services to neighboring countries from India, including Bangladesh and Nepal, registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax amounting to Rs. 9,48,645.99 for goods exported from India between July 2017 and September 2017 via Mahadipur L.C. Station (West Bengal) and Raxaul L.C. Station (Bihar).

The petitioner claimed a refund of the entire IGST amount under Section 16(3)(b) read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, and Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Despite filing both online and manual refund applications, the Department did not process their claims, prompting the petitioner to approach the court for relief.

After the court issued a notice on 24.07.2019, the Department initiated the refund process. As of today’s hearing, the principal refund amount was granted on 23.09.2019 and 29.10.2020. However, the petitioner seeks 6% interest on the principal amount, which the Department has not addressed yet, although the principal refund has been disbursed.

During the hearing, it was noted that the petitioner did not formally apply for interest payment outside of the writ petition. The court acknowledged that the interest claim was not pursued through a separate application and closed the writ petition. The petitioner was allowed to pursue their interest claim through appropriate channels.

Thus, the court closed the writ petition considering that the principal refund had been received, allowing the petitioner to pursue their interest claim through the prescribed procedures.

1. The proceedings began with Mr. D. Saraf representing the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal as standing counsel for several respondents from the Department of Customs and Excise. Mr. B. Gogoi appeared for other respondents.

2. The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship exporting goods and services to neighboring countries from India, registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax amounting to Rs. 9,48,645.99 for goods exported to Mahadipur L.C. Station (West Bengal) and Raxuaul L.C. Station (Bihar) between July 2017 and September 2017.

3. Claiming entitlement under Sections 16(3)(b) and 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner sought a refund of the entire amount paid as IGST and customs.

4. Despite filing both online and manual refund applications, the Department did not process their claim, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition.

5. After the court issued a notice on July 24, 2019, the Department began refund proceedings. As of September 23, 2019, and October 29, 2020, the principal amount claimed for refund was granted to the petitioner. However, the petitioner asserted that their claim for interest at 6% on the principal amount remained unresolved.

6. The court noted that the petitioner had not formally applied for interest payment apart from mentioning it in the writ petition. Given that the principal amount had been refunded, the court closed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue their interest claim through appropriate channels.

7. The petitioner was permitted to submit a copy of the court’s order along with their refund claim to the authorities.

8. The Department was directed to consider the petitioner’s application for interest, granting them an opportunity to present their case.

9. Consequently, the writ petition was closed and disposed of, with the petitioner instructed to pursue their claim for interest through the appropriate administrative process.

This summary encapsulates the key legal and procedural developments in the case regarding the petitioner’s GST refund and interest claim.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: