Bhavya Enterprise VS Union Of India

In the legal proceeding, the petitioner was represented by Mr. D. Saraf, a learned counsel. Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing counsel, appeared for the respondents numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, who are associated with the Department of Customs and Excise. Additionally, Mr. B. Gogoi, another learned counsel, represented respondents numbered 2, 6, and 9.

In this case, Mr. D. Saraf, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 (the Department of Customs and Excise), presented their arguments. Additionally, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 6, and 9, also appeared. The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship concern managed by Sri Gaurav Agarwal, is engaged in exporting various goods and services to neighboring countries from India. Following the enactment of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner duly registered their business, which focuses on exporting goods to Bangladesh.

In the matter at hand, Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel, represented the petitioner, while Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 from the Department of Customs and Excise. Additionally, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel, appeared for respondent nos. 2, 6, and 9.

The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship concern managed by proprietor Sri Gaurav Agarwal, is involved in the export of various goods and services to neighboring countries from India. Following the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act in 2017, the petitioner duly registered its business activities, specifically exports to Bangladesh and Nepal. During the period from July 2017 to September 2017, the petitioner paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to Rs. 9,48,645.99 on goods exported through Mahadipur L.C. Station in West Bengal and Raxaul L.C. Station in Bihar.

In this case, Mr. D. Saraf, the learned counsel, represents the petitioner, while Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned standing counsel, appears for respondent numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 from the Department of Customs and Excise. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel, represents respondent numbers 2, 6, and 9.

The petitioner is a sole-proprietorship business owned by Sri Gaurav Agarwal, involved in the export of various goods and services to neighboring countries, specifically Bangladesh and Nepal. After the enactment of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act in 2017, the petitioner duly registered its business under the new tax regime. During the period from July 2017 to September 2017, the petitioner paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to ₹9,48,645.99 on goods exported from India through Mahadipur L.C. Station in West Bengal and Raxaul L.C. Station in Bihar.

The petitioner claims that it is entitled to a refund of the entire IGST amount paid, totaling ₹9,48,645.99.

petitioner that despite several reminders, the respondent authorities have failed to process the refund claim. The petitioner, represented by Mr. D. Saraf, argues that they are entitled to a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to 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 engaged in export business, duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, claims this refund under Section 16(3)(b) and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, as well as Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Keyal, representing the Department of Customs and Excise for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, along with Mr. B. Gogoi for respondent nos. 2, 6, and 9, appears to oppose the petitioner’s claim. They argue against the refund, challenging the procedural compliance and possibly the eligibility criteria for the refund.

Despite the petitioner’s submission of all necessary documentation and repeated reminders to the authorities, the refund has not been processed, leading to the current legal challenge.

The case involves a petitioner, represented by Mr. D. Saraf, seeking a refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) totaling Rs. 9,48,645.99, paid on goods exported from India to Bangladesh and Nepal between July 2017 and September 2017. The petitioner, a sole-proprietorship exporting various goods, registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, claimed this refund under relevant sections of both the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite filing necessary paperwork online and manually, the petitioner’s refund claims were initially not entertained by the Department of Customs and Excise.

Following the issuance of a court notice in July 2019, the Department began refunding the principal amount claimed, with payments made on September 23, 2019, and October 29, 2020. However, the petitioner contends that interest at 6% per annum, also claimed in the writ petition, has not been addressed by the Department despite receiving the principal refund.

During the court proceedings, Mr. S.C. Keyal appeared for the respondents, and Mr. B. Gogoi represented other respondents. The court noted that while the principal refund had been resolved, the interest claim was not formally pursued through an application, though raised in the writ petition. Ultimately, the court acknowledged the receipt of the principal refund and discussed the procedural aspects concerning the interest claim, indicating that further steps would be necessary for its resolution.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: